Literature DB >> 15608428

Prognostic factors. Confusion caused by bad quality design, analysis and reporting of many studies.

Willi Sauerbrei1.   

Abstract

In contrast to therapeutic research guidance to design, conduct, analyse and report studies on prognostic factors is less developed and often several deficiencies are stressed. For the assessment of the importance of a factor of interest a systematic review of the corresponding studies would be required, however, this is hardly possible because of many weaknesses in the individual studies. In this article I will discuss several deficiencies of the analysis of prognostic factor studies and shortly discuss problems of reporting and of a summary assessment. By using 3 studies in cancer and a hypotheitcal study as examples I will discuss categorization respectively the determination of a functional form for a continuous factor, sample size, multivariable analysis and data quality. The message of this paper is that serious improvements of prognostic factor studies are required. This can be achieved by a closer collaboration between several disciplines and a closer collaboration at the international level. Specifically, experienced statisticians have to play a central role in the planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of these studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15608428     DOI: 10.1159/000082508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0065-3071


  18 in total

1.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 8.775

2.  Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 3.  Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines.

Authors:  S Mallett; A Timmer; W Sauerbrei; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies.

Authors:  Angela Aldin; Lisa Umlauff; Lise J Estcourt; Gary Collins; Karel Gm Moons; Andreas Engert; Carsten Kobe; Bastian von Tresckow; Madhuri Haque; Farid Foroutan; Nina Kreuzberger; Marialena Trivella; Nicole Skoetz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-09-16

Review 5.  Individual participant data meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies: state of the art?

Authors:  Ghada Abo-Zaid; Willi Sauerbrei; Richard D Riley
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Interim PET-results for prognosis in adults with Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies.

Authors:  Angela Aldin; Lisa Umlauff; Lise J Estcourt; Gary Collins; Karel Gm Moons; Andreas Engert; Carsten Kobe; Bastian von Tresckow; Madhuri Haque; Farid Foroutan; Nina Kreuzberger; Marialena Trivella; Nicole Skoetz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-13

Review 7.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research.

Authors:  Richard D Riley; Jill A Hayden; Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Keith Abrams; Panayiotis A Kyzas; Núria Malats; Andrew Briggs; Sara Schroter; Douglas G Altman; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 8.  Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Danielle A van der Windt; Jill A Hayden; Pablo Perel; Sara Schroter; Richard D Riley; Harry Hemingway; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Individual participant data meta-analysis for a binary outcome: one-stage or two-stage?

Authors:  Thomas P A Debray; Karel G M Moons; Ghada Mohammed Abdallah Abo-Zaid; Hendrik Koffijberg; Richard David Riley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond.

Authors:  R D Riley; W Sauerbrei; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.