Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies
Φόρτωση...
Ημερομηνία
Συγγραφείς
Τίτλος Εφημερίδας
Περιοδικό ISSN
Τίτλος τόμου
Εκδότης
Περίληψη
Τύπος
Είδος δημοσίευσης σε συνέδριο
Είδος περιοδικού
peer-reviewed
Είδος εκπαιδευτικού υλικού
Όνομα συνεδρίου
Όνομα περιοδικού
J Natl Cancer Inst
Όνομα βιβλίου
Σειρά βιβλίου
Έκδοση βιβλίου
Συμπληρωματικός/δευτερεύων τίτλος
Περιγραφή
BACKGROUND: Nonreported and selectively reported information and the use of different definitions may introduce biases in the literature of prognostic factors. We probed these biases in a meta-analysis of a prognostic factor for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) mortality that has drawn wide attention--the status of the tumor suppressor protein TP53. METHODS: We compared results of meta-analyses that included published data plus unpublished data retrieved from investigators; published data; and only published data indexed with "survival" or "mortality" in MEDLINE/EMBASE, with or without standardized definitions. We also evaluated whether previously published meta-analyses on mortality predictors for various malignancies addressed issues of retrieval and standardized information. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: For the 18 studies with 1364 patients that included published and indexed data, we obtained a highly statistically significant association between TP53 status and mortality. When we used the definitions preferred by each publication, the association was stronger (risk ratio [RR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 1.67; P = .001) than when we standardized definitions (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.53; P = .011). The addition of 13 studies with 1028 subjects that included published but not indexed data reduced the observed association (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.47; P = .02). Finally, when we obtained data from investigators (11 studies with 996 patients) and analyzed it with all other data, statistical significance was lost (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.35; P = .06). Among 18 published meta-analyses of 37 cancer prognostic factors, 13 (72%) did not use standardized definitions and 16 (89%) did not retrieve additional information. CONCLUSIONS: Selective reporting may spuriously inflate the importance of postulated prognostic factors for various malignancies. We recommend that meta-analyses thereof should maximize retrieval of information and standardize definitions.
Περιγραφή
Λέξεις-κλειδιά
Aged, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/chemistry/*mortality/pathology, Confidence Intervals, Epidemiologic Research Design, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms/chemistry/*mortality/pathology, Humans, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Middle Aged, Odds Ratio, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, *Publication Bias, Research Design, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Survival Rate, Tumor Markers, Biological/*analysis, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/*analysis, United States/epidemiology
Θεματική κατηγορία
Παραπομπή
Σύνδεσμος
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16030302
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/14/1043.full.pdf
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/14/1043.full.pdf
Γλώσσα
en
Εκδίδον τμήμα/τομέας
Όνομα επιβλέποντος
Εξεταστική επιτροπή
Γενική Περιγραφή / Σχόλια
Ίδρυμα και Σχολή/Τμήμα του υποβάλλοντος
Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικής