SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2018
Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Prognostic value of miR-21 for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bioscience reports · 2022Pooled it
- Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- From Association to Prediction: Translational Barriers in Pain Biomarker Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic factor research: why it matters in orthopaedics and how we do it better.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Building Hybrid Pharmacometric-Machine Learning Models in Oncology Drug Development: Current State and Recommendations.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Review
- Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- An overview of statistical methods for biomarkers relevant to early clinical development of cancer immunotherapies.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Could palliative sedation be seen as unnamed euthanasia?: a survey among healthcare professionals in oncology.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies.BMC medicine · 2022Review
- Linguistic spin in randomized controlled trials about age-related macular degeneration.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- Tumor Mutation Burden Predicts Relapse in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma With Changes in Genes and Immune Microenvironment.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- GADD45B Transcript Is a Prognostic Marker in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Patients Treated With Total Thyroidectomy and Radioiodine Therapy.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Article
- The SSSPIN study-spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.