The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 12, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Choong, Miew Keen ^a   Tsafnat, Guy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Biomarkers; Evidence based medicine; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84869876854     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-176     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WMC, Haynes RB, Edinburg, Scotland: Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, Churchill Livingstone 2000
2. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS, BMJ 1996 312 7023 71 72 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 8555924
3. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development. Bosch-Capblanch X, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Atun R, Røttingen J-A, Dröschel D, Beck L, Abalos E, El-Jardali F, Gilson L, et al. PLoS Med 2012 9 3 1001185 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001185 22412356
4. Cohen AM, Adams CE, Davis JM, Yu C, Yu PS, Meng W, Duggan L, McDonagh M, Smalheiser NR, Evidence-based medicine, the essential role of systematic reviews, and the need for automated text mining tools Virginia, USA: ACM, Arlington Proceedings of the 1st ACM international health informatics symposium. 2010 376 380
5. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG, PLoS Med 2007 4 3 78 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 17388659
6. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will We ever keep Up? Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, PLoS Med 2010 7 9 1000326 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 20877712
7. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework*. Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Hoth DF, Oates JA, Peck CC, Schooley RT, Spilker BA, et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 69 3 89 95 11240971
8. What is a biomarker? Research investments and lack of clinical integration necessitate a review of biomarker terminology and validation schema. Ptolemy AS, Rifai N, Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2010 70 S242 6 14 10.3109/00365513.2010.493354 19958067
9. Genetic and epigenetic biomarkers of colorectal cancer. Choong MK, Tsafnat G, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012 10 1 9 15 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.04.020 21635968
10. Translational crossroads for biomarkers. Bast RC Jr, Lilja H, Urban N, Rimm DL, Fritsche H, Gray J, Veltri R, Klee G, Allen A, Kim N, Clin Cancer Res 2005 11 17 6103 6108 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2213 16144908
11. Biomarker assay translation from discovery to clinical studies in cancer drug development: quantification of emerging protein biomarkers. Lee JW, Figeys D, Vasilescu J, Adv Cancer Res 2006 96 269 298
12. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. Sung NS, Crowley JWF, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, Johnson SB, Catanese V, Tilson H, Getz K, et al. JAMA 2003 289 10 1278 1287 10.1001/jama.289.10.1278 12633190
13. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. Ioannidis J, Panagiotou OA, JAMA 2011 305 21 2200 10.1001/jama.2011.713 21632484
14. de Solla DJ P, Little science, big science New York and London: Columbia University Press 1963
15. Translational bioinformatics: coming of age. Butte AJ, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008 15 6 709 714 10.1197/jamia.M2824 18755990
16. Genetics education for primary-care providers. Burke W, Emery J, Nat Rev Genet 2002 3 7 561 566 10.1038/nrg845 12094234
17. On the synthesis and interpretation of consistent but weak gene-disease associations in the era of genome-wide association studies. Khoury MJ, Little J, Gwinn M, Ioannidis JP, Int J Epidemiol 2007 36 2 439 445 10.1093/ije/dyl253 17182636
18. Evidence-based medicine versus personalized medicine: Are they enemies? de Leon J, J Clin Psychopharmacol 2012 32 2 153 164 110.1097/JCP. 1090b1013e3182491383 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3182491383 22367661
19. Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects. Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP, Int J Epidemiol 2011 40 5 1292 1307 10.1093/ije/dyr099 21737403
20. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations. Ioannidis JPA, Am J Epidemiol 2008 168 4 374 383 10.1093/aje/kwn156 18611956
21. Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists. Panagiotou OA, Ioannidis JPA, J Clin Epidemiol 2012 65 7 740 747 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.008 22537426