OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of studies on new prognostic markers of outcome in acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We used MEDLINE searches complemented with perusal of review articles' references to identify eligible English-language studies. We included studies evaluating nonroutine markers for acute pancreatitis. Eligible outcomes included Atlanta criteria, Japanese criteria for severity, multiple/single organ failure, complications, interventional treatment, hospitalization length, and death. We generated a 47-item checklist on Acute Pancreatitis Prognosis by adapting a previously constructed reporting guidance instrument for prognostic tumor markers (REMARK [Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies]). The checklist addresses the reporting of essential information in prognostic studies. RESULTS: The 184 identified eligible studies reported on 196 different prognostic markers. One hundred forty-four studies (78.3%) found at least 1 prognostic marker to be nominally statistically significant. Significant improvements over time were seen in the reporting for 17 items, but major deficiencies were noted even in 2004-2009 studies. Particularly, 12 items were reported in less than 10% of studies overall and even within the most recent studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some improvements over time, the reporting of important aspects of prognostic studies in acute pancreatitis remains suboptimal. The proposed REMARK-based checklist may help improve the quality and reporting of research in this field.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of studies on new prognostic markers of outcome in acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We used MEDLINE searches complemented with perusal of review articles' references to identify eligible English-language studies. We included studies evaluating nonroutine markers for acute pancreatitis. Eligible outcomes included Atlanta criteria, Japanese criteria for severity, multiple/single organ failure, complications, interventional treatment, hospitalization length, and death. We generated a 47-item checklist on Acute Pancreatitis Prognosis by adapting a previously constructed reporting guidance instrument for prognostic tumor markers (REMARK [Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies]). The checklist addresses the reporting of essential information in prognostic studies. RESULTS: The 184 identified eligible studies reported on 196 different prognostic markers. One hundred forty-four studies (78.3%) found at least 1 prognostic marker to be nominally statistically significant. Significant improvements over time were seen in the reporting for 17 items, but major deficiencies were noted even in 2004-2009 studies. Particularly, 12 items were reported in less than 10% of studies overall and even within the most recent studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some improvements over time, the reporting of important aspects of prognostic studies in acute pancreatitis remains suboptimal. The proposed REMARK-based checklist may help improve the quality and reporting of research in this field.
Authors: Valentina Gallo; Matthias Egger; Valerie McCormack; Peter B Farmer; John P A Ioannidis; Micheline Kirsch-Volders; Giuseppe Matullo; David H Phillips; Bernadette Schoket; Ulf Stromberg; Roel Vermeulen; Christopher Wild; Miquel Porta; Paolo Vineis Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Alberto Schanaider; Thales Penna de Carvalho; Simone de Oliveira Coelho; Juan Miguel Renteria; Elis Cristina Araújo Eleuthério; Morgana Teixeira Lima Castelo-Branco; Kalil Madi; Wagner Baetas-da-Cruz; Heitor Siffert Pereira de Souza Journal: Clin Exp Med Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Valentina Gallo; Matthias Egger; Valerie McCormack; Peter B Farmer; John P A Ioannidis; Micheline Kirsch-Volders; Giuseppe Matullo; David H Phillips; Bernadette Schoket; Ulf Stromberg; Roel Vermeulen; Christopher Wild; Miquel Porta; Paolo Vineis Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube; Lisa M McShane; Margaret M Cavenagh; Douglas G Altman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Willi Sauerbrei; Michal Abrahamowicz; Douglas G Altman; Saskia le Cessie; James Carpenter Journal: Stat Med Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 2.373