© 2005 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies
Affiliations of authors: Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece (PAK, KTL, JPAI); Biomedical Research Institute, Foundation for Research and Technology–Hellas, Ioannina, Greece (JPAI); Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts–New England Medical Center, Boston, MA (JPAI)
Correspondence to: John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, Chairman, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina 45110, Greece (e-mail: jioannid{at}cc.uoi.gr).
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 Methods: We compared results of meta-analyses that included published data plus unpublished data retrieved from investigators; published data; and only published data indexed with "survival" or "mortality" in MEDLINE/EMBASE, with or without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.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Editorial about this Article
- Identification of Clinically Useful Cancer Prognostic Factors: What Are We Missing?
- Lisa M. McShane, Douglas G. Altman, and Willi Sauerbrei
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97: 1023-1025.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Ramsey and J. Scoggins Commentary: Practicing on the Tip of an Information Iceberg? Evidence of Underpublication of Registered Clinical Trials in Oncology Oncologist, September 1, 2008; 13(9): 925 - 929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. Kyzas, E. Evangelou, D. Denaxa-Kyza, and J. P. A. Ioannidis 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Cervical Node Metastases in Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, May 21, 2008; 100(10): 712 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Hackbarth Research Reporting and Evidence of Effectiveness: Why "No Difference" Matters Am. J. Crit. Care., May 1, 2008; 17(3): 218 - 220. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. F. Lehnerdt, P. Franz, A. Zaqoul, K. J. Schmitz, S. Grehl, S. Lang, K. W. Schmid, W. Siffert, K. Jahnke, and U. H. Frey Overall and Relapse-Free Survival in Oropharyngeal and Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Are Associated with Genotypes of T393C Polymorphism of the GNAS1 Gene Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2008; 14(6): 1753 - 1758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. M. Smith, D. Wang, L. M. Rubenstein, W. A. Morris, L. P. Turek, and T. H. Haugen Association between p53 and Human Papillomavirus in Head and Neck Cancer Survival Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 421 - 427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. H. Turner, A. M. Matthews, E. Linardatos, R. A. Tell, and R. Rosenthal Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy N. Engl. J. Med., January 17, 2008; 358(3): 252 - 260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-S. Tsao, S. Aviel-Ronen, K. Ding, D. Lau, N. Liu, A. Sakurada, M. Whitehead, C.-Q. Zhu, R. Livingston, D. H. Johnson, et al. Prognostic and Predictive Importance of p53 and RAS for Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2007; 25(33): 5240 - 5247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Vandenbroucke, E. v. Elm, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gotzsche, C. D. Mulrow, S. J. Pocock, C. Poole, J. J. Schlesselman, M. Egger, and for the STROBE initiative Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration Ann Intern Med, October 16, 2007; 147(8): W-163 - W-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Ioannidis and T. A Trikalinos An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings Clinical Trials, June 1, 2007; 4(3): 245 - 253. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P.A. Ioannidis and T. A. Trikalinos The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 10, 2007; 176(8): 1091 - 1096. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. A. Ioannidis Is Molecular Profiling Ready for Use in Clinical Decision Making? Oncologist, March 1, 2007; 12(3): 301 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Kyzas, D. Denaxa-Kyza, and J. P. A. Ioannidis Quality of Reporting of Cancer Prognostic Marker Studies: Association With Reported Prognostic Effect J Natl Cancer Inst, February 7, 2007; 99(3): 236 - 243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Gillison Human Papillomavirus and Prognosis of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Implications for Clinical Research in Head and Neck Cancers J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2006; 24(36): 5623 - 5625. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Hernandez, E. Lopez-Knowles, J. Lloreta, M. Kogevinas, A. Amoros, A. Tardon, A. Carrato, C. Serra, N. Malats, and F. X. Real Prospective Study of FGFR3 Mutations As a Prognostic Factor in Nonmuscle Invasive Urothelial Bladder Carcinomas J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 24(22): 3664 - 3671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C-Q Zhu, W Shih, C-H Ling, and M-S Tsao Immunohistochemical markers of prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer: a review and proposal for a multiphase approach to marker evaluation. J. Clin. Pathol., August 1, 2006; 59(8): 790 - 800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. McShane, D. G. Altman, W. Sauerbrei, S. E. Taube, M. Gion, and G. M. Clark RESPONSE: Re: Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) J Natl Cancer Inst, December 21, 2005; 97(24): 1855 - 1856. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. McShane, D. G. Altman, and W. Sauerbrei Identification of Clinically Useful Cancer Prognostic Factors: What Are We Missing? J Natl Cancer Inst, July 20, 2005; 97(14): 1023 - 1025. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|