REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalisability of the study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the US National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. Similar to the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply

Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To evaluate the use and reporting of adjusted analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and compare the quality of reporting before and after the revision of the CONSORT Statement in 2001.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>Comparison of two cross sectional samples of published articles.</p> <p>Data Sources</p> <p>Journal articles indexed on PubMed in December 2000 and December 2006.</p> <p>Study Selection</p> <p>Parallel group RCTs with a full publication carried out in humans and published in English</p> <p>Main outcome measures</p> <p>Proportion of articles reported adjusted analysis; use of adjusted analysis; the reason for adjustment; the method of adjustment and the reporting of adjusted analysis results in the main text and abstract.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In both cohorts, 25% of studies reported adjusted analysis (84/355 in 2000 vs 113/422 in 2006). Compared with articles reporting only unadjusted analyses, articles that reported adjusted analyses were more likely to specify primary outcomes, involve multiple centers, perform stratified randomization, be published in general medical journals, and recruit larger sample sizes. In both years a minority of articles explained why and how covariates were selected for adjustment (20% to 30%). Almost all articles specified the statistical methods used for adjustment (99% in 2000 vs 100% in 2006) but only 5% and 10%, respectively, reported both adjusted and unadjusted results as recommended in the CONSORT guidelines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There was no evidence of change in the reporting of adjusted analysis results five years after the revision of the CONSORT Statement and only a few articles adhered fully to the CONSORT recommendations.</p

Mining and analysis of audiology data to find significant factors associated with tinnitus masker

Objectives: The objective of this research is to find the factors associated with tinnitus masker from the literature, and by using the large amount of audiology data available from a large NHS (National Health Services, UK) hearing aid clinic. The factors evaluated were hearing impairment, age, gender, hearing aid type, mould and clinical comments. Design: The research includes literature survey for factors associated with tinnitus masker, and performs the analysis of audiology data using statistical and data mining techniques. Setting: This research uses a large audiology data but it also faced the problem of limited data for tinnitus. Participants: It uses 1,316 records for tinnitus and other diagnoses, and 10,437 records of clinical comments from a hearing aid clinic. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The research is looking for variables associated with tinnitus masker, and in future, these variables can be combined into a single model to develop a decision support system to predict about tinnitus masker for a patient. Results: The results demonstrated that tinnitus maskers are more likely to be fit to individuals with milder forms of hearing loss, and the factors age, gender, type of hearing aid and mould were all found significantly associated with tinnitus masker. In particular, those patients having Age<=55 years were more likely to wear a tinnitus masker, as well as those with milder forms of hearing loss. ITE (in the ear) hearing aids were also found associated with tinnitus masker. A feedback on the results of association of mould with tinnitus masker from a professional audiologist of a large NHS (National Health Services, UK) was also taken to better understand them. The results were obtained with different accuracy for different techniques. For example, the chi-squared test results were obtained with 95% accuracy, for Support and Confidence only those results were retained which had more than 1% Support and 80% Confidence. Conclusions: The variables audiograms, age, gender, hearing aid type and mould were found associated with the choice of tinnitus masker in the literature and by using statistical and data mining techniques. The further work in this research would lead to the development of a decision support system for tinnitus masker with an explanation that how that decision was obtained

Whole animal experiments should be more like human randomized controlled trials

Beverly S. Muhlhausler, Frank H. Bloomfield, Matthew W. Gillma

Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited

Cytoplasmic PML promotes TGF-β-associated epithelial–mesenchymal transition and invasion in prostate cancer

Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a key event that is involved in the invasion and dissemination of cancer cells. Although typically considered as having tumour-suppressive properties, transforming growth factor (TGF)-β signalling is altered during cancer and has been associated with the invasion of cancer cells and metastasis. In this study, we report a previously unknown role for the cytoplasmic promyelocytic leukaemia (cPML) tumour suppressor in TGF-β signalling-induced regulation of prostate cancer-associated EMT and invasion. We demonstrate that cPML promotes a mesenchymal phenotype and increases the invasiveness of prostate cancer cells. This event is associated with activation of TGF-β canonical signalling pathway through the induction of Sma and Mad related family 2 and 3 (SMAD2 and SMAD3) phosphorylation. Furthermore, the cytoplasmic localization of promyelocytic leukaemia (PML) is mediated by its nuclear export in a chromosomal maintenance 1 (CRM1)-dependent manner. This was clinically tested in prostate cancer tissue and shown that cytoplasmic PML and CRM1 co-expression correlates with reduced disease-specific survival. In summary, we provide evidence of dysfunctional TGF-β signalling occurring at an early stage in prostate cancer. We show that this disease pathway is mediated by cPML and CRM1 and results in a more aggressive cancer cell phenotype. We propose that the targeting of this pathway could be therapeutically exploited for clinical benefit

A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Poor recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is problematic but common. Clear and detailed reporting of participant flow is essential to assess the generalisability and comparability of RCTs. Despite improved reporting since the implementation of the CONSORT statement, important problems remain. This paper aims: (i) to update and extend previous reviews evaluating reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs; (ii) to quantify the level of participation throughout RCTs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed all reports of RCTs of health care interventions and/or processes with individual randomisation, published July–December 2004 in six major journals. Short, secondary or interim reports, and Phase I/II trials were excluded. Data recorded were: general RCT details; inclusion of flow diagram; participant flow throughout trial; reasons for non-participation/withdrawal; target sample sizes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>133 reports were reviewed. Overall, 79% included a flow diagram, but over a third were incomplete. The majority reported the flow of participants at each stage of the trial after randomisation. However, 40% failed to report the numbers assessed for eligibility. Percentages of participants retained at each stage were high: for example, 90% of eligible individuals were randomised, and 93% of those randomised were outcome assessed. On average, trials met their sample size targets. However, there were some substantial shortfalls: for example 21% of trials reporting a sample size calculation failed to achieve adequate numbers at randomisation, and 48% at outcome assessment. Reporting of losses to follow up was variable and difficult to interpret.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of RCTs reported the flow of participants well after randomisation, although only two-thirds included a complete flow chart and there was great variability over the definition of "lost to follow up". Reporting of participant eligibility was poor, making assessments of recruitment practice and external validity difficult. Reporting of participant flow throughout RCTs could be improved by small changes to the CONSORT chart.</p

Migrant participation in Norwegian health care. A qualitative study using key informants

Background Little is known about how migrants adapt to first-world public health systems. In Norway, patients are assigned a registered general practitioner (RGP) to provide basic care and serve as gatekeeper for other medical services. Objectives: To explore determinants of migrant compliance with the RGP scheme and obstacles that migrants may experience. Methods: Individuals in leadership positions within migrant organizations for the 13 largest migrant populations in Norway in 2008 participated in this qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews, with migrants serving as key informants, were used to elucidate possible challenges migrant patients face in navigating the local primary health-care system. Conversations were structured using an interview guide covering the range of challenges that migrant patients meet in the health-care system. Results: According to informants, integration into the RGP scheme and adequacy of patient-physician communication varies according to duration of stay in Norway, the patient's country of origin, the reason for migration, health literacy, intention to establish permanent residence in Norway, language proficiency, and comprehension of information received about the health system. Informants noted as obstacles: doctor-patient interaction patterns, conflicting ideas about the role of the doctor, and language and cultural differences. In addressing noted obstacles, one strategy would be to combine direct intervention by migrant associations with indirect intervention via the public-health system

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

In oncology, prognostic markers are clinical measures used to help elicit an individual patient's risk of a future outcome, such as recurrence of disease after primary treatment. They thus facilitate individual treatment choice and aid in patient counselling. Evidence-based results regarding prognostic markers are therefore very important to both clinicians and their patients. However, there is increasing awareness that prognostic marker studies have been neglected in the drive to improve medical research. Large protocol-driven, prospective studies are the ideal, with appropriate statistical analysis and clear, unbiased reporting of the methods used and the results obtained. Unfortunately, published prognostic studies rarely meet such standards, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often only able to draw attention to the paucity of good-quality evidence. We discuss how better-quality prognostic marker evidence can evolve over time from initial exploratory studies, to large protocol-driven primary studies, and then to meta-analysis or even beyond, to large prospectively planned pooled analyses and to the initiation of tumour banks. We highlight articles that facilitate each stage of this process, and that promote current guidelines aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of prognostic marker research. We also outline why collaborative, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary teams should be an essential part of future studies

Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The belief remains widespread that medical research studies must have statistical power of at least 80% in order to be scientifically sound, and peer reviewers often question whether power is high enough.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This requirement and the methods for meeting it have severe flaws. Notably, the true nature of how sample size influences a study's projected scientific or practical value precludes any meaningful blanket designation of <80% power as "inadequate". In addition, standard calculations are inherently unreliable, and focusing only on power neglects a completed study's most important results: estimates and confidence intervals. Current conventions harm the research process in many ways: promoting misinterpretation of completed studies, eroding scientific integrity, giving reviewers arbitrary power, inhibiting innovation, perverting ethical standards, wasting effort, and wasting money. Medical research would benefit from alternative approaches, including established <it>value of information </it>methods, simple choices based on cost or feasibility that have recently been justified, sensitivity analyses that examine a meaningful array of possible findings, and following previous analogous studies. To promote more rational approaches, research training should cover the issues presented here, peer reviewers should be extremely careful before raising issues of "inadequate" sample size, and reports of completed studies should not discuss power.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Common conventions and expectations concerning sample size are deeply flawed, cause serious harm to the research process, and should be replaced by more rational alternatives.</p