SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
Adapting PRISMA Guidelines to Enhance Reporting Quality in Genetic Association Studies: A Framework Proposal.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo propose a framework for enhancing the reporting quality of genetic association studies by adapting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
methodsA systematic review was performed on case-control and cohort studies published in peer-reviewed journals up to October 7, 2024. Eligible studies reported on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and gene expression profiles. Data collection consisted of a thorough examination of methodologies, population stratification, phenotype definitions, and ethical aspects concerning informed consent and data sharing.
resultsThe adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines created a cohesive reporting framework that improved reproducibility in 67% of 150 studies reviewed, up from 34% before the adaptation. Reported biases significantly decreased, with population stratification issues falling from 42% to 18% (p<0.01). Comprehensive reporting of genetic variants rose from 50% to 85% post-adaptation, aiding biological interpretation of results. A literature review found that only 60% of analyzed meta-analyses adhered to PRISMA standards, revealing notable deficiencies in sample characteristics, methodologies, and statistical reporting, including effect sizes and confidence intervals. Expert consultations indicated a need for clearer guidelines on population stratification, sample selection criteria, and gene-environment interactions. Recommendations for PRISMA adaptation include specific reporting items for genetic nuances, standardized methodologies, and attention to ethical considerations in genetic research. A proposed framework for ongoing evaluation and updates will emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration and transparency to enhance the reproducibility and credibility of genetic research findings.
conclusionThe customized adaptation of PRISMA guidelines greatly improves the methodological quality and ethical standards of genetic association studies, enhancing the integrity and validity of research findings. These adaptations mark a critical advancement in the rigor and transparency of such research. By tackling the complexities of genetic data, researchers can enhance the comparability and reproducibility of their results, thereby furthering personalized medicine and public health.
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.