» Articles » PMID: 16030302

Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2005 Jul 21
PMID 16030302
Citations 81
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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Methods: We compared results of meta-analyses that included published data plus unpublished data retrieved from investigators; published data; and only published data indexed with "survival" or "mortality" in MEDLINE/EMBASE, with or without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.

Citing Articles

Definition and assessment of adherence to oral nutritional supplements in patients with neoplasms: a scoping review.

Liu B, Liu Z, Gui Q, Lin Y, Huang G, Lyu J BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):1483.

PMID: 39623358 PMC: 11610086. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-13237-y.


Care to share? Experimental evidence on code sharing behavior in the social sciences.

Krahmer D, Schachtele L, Schneck A PLoS One. 2023; 18(8):e0289380.

PMID: 37549146 PMC: 10406284. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289380.


Toward Open and Reproducible Epidemiology.

Mathur M, Fox M Am J Epidemiol. 2023; 192(4):658-664.

PMID: 36627249 PMC: 10089067. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwad007.


Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies.

Sauerbrei W, Haeussler T, Balmford J, Huebner M BMC Med. 2022; 20(1):184.

PMID: 35546237 PMC: 9095054. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02304-5.


Reporting bias in clinical trials: Progress toward transparency and next steps.

Mitra-Majumdar M, Kesselheim A PLoS Med. 2022; 19(1):e1003894.

PMID: 35045078 PMC: 8769309. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003894.