Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Guideline
. 2005 Aug 22;93(4):387-91.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678.

REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

Affiliations
Guideline

REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

L M McShane et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Altman DG (2001a) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta–Analysis in Context Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds) 2nd edn, pp 228–247. London: : BMJ Books
    1. Altman DG (2001b) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323: 224–228 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, De Stavola BL, Love SB, Stepniewska KA (1995) Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer 72: 511–518 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M (1994) Dangers of using ‘optimal’ cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 829–835 - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Lyman GH (1998) Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52: 289–303 - PubMed

Publication types

Substances