Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32956352›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies: Development of the STROPS guideline.

Marty Chaplin, Jamie J Kirkham, Kerry Dwan, Derek J Sloan, Geraint Davies, Andrea L Jorgensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The Impact ofHospital pharmacy · 2024
    Article
  16. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Impact ofJournal of personalized medicine · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marty ChaplinDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7097-8704
Jamie J KirkhamDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2579-9325
Kerry DwanCochrane Editorial Unit, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6918-1215
Derek J SloanSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7888-5449
Geraint DaviesDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3819-490X
Andrea L JorgensenDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. METHODS AND

findingsWe established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease-gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom.

conclusionsOur aim is for the STROPS guideline to improve the transparency of reporting of pharmacogenetic studies and also to facilitate the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We encourage authors to adhere to the STROPS guideline when publishing pharmacogenetic studies.

Indexed as

AdultChecklistConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleGenetic Association StudiesGoalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharmacogeneticsPharmacogenomic TestingPoliticsPublishingResearch DesignStakeholder Participation

Identifiers

PMID32956352
PMCPMC7505422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.