Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS Statement

Abstract

The recent successes of genome-wide association studies and the promises of whole genome sequencing fuel interest in the translation of this new wave of basic genetic knowledge to health care practice. Knowledge about genetic risk factors may be used to target diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic interventions for complex disorders based on a person's genetic risk, or to complement existing risk models based on classical nongenetic factors, such as the Framingham risk score for cardiovascular disease. Implementation of genetic risk prediction in health care requires a series of studies that encompass all phases of translational research,1,2 starting with a comprehensive evaluation of genetic risk prediction. With increasing numbers of discovered genetic markers that can be used in future genetic risk prediction studies, it is crucial to enhance the quality of the reporting of these studies, since valid interpretation could be compromised by the lack of reporting of key information. Information that is often missing includes details in the description of how the study was designed and conducted (eg, how genetic variants were selected and coded, how risk models or genetic risk scores were constructed, and how risk categories were chosen), or how the results should be interpreted. An appropriate assessment of the study's strengths and weaknesses is not possible without this information. There is ample evidence that prediction research often suffers from poor design and bias, and these may also have an impact on the results of the studies and on models of disease outcomes based on these studies.3–5 Although most prognostic studies published to date claim significant results,6,7 very few translate to clinically useful applications. Just as for observational epidemiological studies,8 poor reporting complicates the use of the specific study for research, clinical, or public health purposes and hampers the …