Abstract
BackgroundCancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology.MethodsThis systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty).ResultsOur search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1–Q3, 1–7). The prognostic factors’ effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions.ConclusionsOur study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.
Highlights
Assessing the prognosis of patients with cancer is a key issue in clinical practice.[1]
The prognostic factor effect for a specific outcome or a specific prognostic factor is missing The prognostic factor effect for a specific subgroup or a subpopulation is missing Some prognostic factors (PFs) effects are reported within a multivariable model, whereas others are reported within a univariate analysis For any subgroup analysis reported, whether pre-specified or not, an interaction test p value is not reported Only adjusted hazard ratios are reported for the prognostic factor effect, not 95% confidence intervals or p values; OR Only a p value is reported for the prognostic factor effect, not adjusted hazard ratios; OR No statistical results are reported For any subgroup analysis reported, whether pre-specified or not, an interaction test p value is not reported
41 out of 50 studies that reported at Not assessed association in a multivariable model is reported in least one non-significant the results, this result is not mentioned in the PF–outcome association conclusion
Summary
Assessing the prognosis of patients with cancer is a key issue in clinical practice.[1]. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty). Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in highimpact medical oncology journals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
