The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Guy Tsafnat¹  Miew Keen Choong¹ 

[1] Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

关键词: Systematic review;    Evidence-based medicine;    Biomarkers;   

Others  :  1126440
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-176

 received in 2012-08-07, accepted in 2012-11-03,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

In Evidence-Based Medicine, clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews are crucial devices for medical practitioners in making clinical decision. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to support health care decisions for specific circumstances whereas systematic reviews are summaries of evidence on clearly formulated clinical questions. Biomarkers are biological measurements (primarily molecular) that are used to diagnose, predict treatment outcomes and prognosticate disease and are increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Methods

We search PubMed for systematic reviews, RCTs, case reports and non-systematic reviews with and without mentions of biomarkers between years 1990–2011. We compared the frequency and growth rate of biomarkers and non-biomarkers publications. We also compared the growth of the proportion of biomarker-based RCTs with the growth of the proportion of biomarker-based systematic reviews.

Results

With 147,774 systematic reviews indexed in PubMed from 1990 to 2011 (accessed on 18/10/2012), only 4,431 (3%) are dedicated to biomarkers. The annual growth rate of biomarkers publications is consistently higher than non-biomarkers publications, showing the growth in biomarkers research. From 20 years of systematic review publications indexed in PubMed, we identified a bias in systematic reviews against the inclusion of biomarker-based RCTs.

Conclusions

With the realisation of genome-based personalised medicine, biomarkers are becoming important for clinical decision making. The bias against the inclusion of biomarkers in systematic reviews leads to medical practitioners deprive of important information they require to address clinical questions. Sparse or weak evidence and lack of genetic training for systematic reviewers may contribute to this trend.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Choong and Tsafnat; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 10.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [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]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS: Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996, 312(7023):71-72.
• [3]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.: Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development. PLoS Med 2012, 9(3):e1001185.
• [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; 2010:376-380. [Proceedings of the 1st ACM international health informatics symposium]
• [5]Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG: Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007, 4(3):e78.
• [6]Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I: Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will We ever keep Up? PLoS Med 2010, 7(9):e1000326.
• [7]Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Hoth DF, Oates JA, Peck CC, Schooley RT, Spilker BA, et al.: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework*. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001, 69(3):89-95.
• [8]Ptolemy AS, Rifai N: What is a biomarker? Research investments and lack of clinical integration necessitate a review of biomarker terminology and validation schema. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2010, 70(S242):6-14.
• [9]Choong MK, Tsafnat G: Genetic and epigenetic biomarkers of colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012, 10(1):9-15.
• [10]Bast RC Jr, Lilja H, Urban N, Rimm DL, Fritsche H, Gray J, Veltri R, Klee G, Allen A, Kim N: Translational crossroads for biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res 2005, 11(17):6103-6108.
• [11]Lee JW, Figeys D, Vasilescu J: Biomarker assay translation from discovery to clinical studies in cancer drug development: quantification of emerging protein biomarkers. Adv Cancer Res 2006, 96:269-298.
• [12]Sung NS, Crowley JWF, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, Johnson SB, Catanese V, Tilson H, Getz K, et al.: Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 2003, 289(10):1278-1287.
• [13]Ioannidis J, Panagiotou OA: Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA 2011, 305(21):2200.
• [14]de Solla DJ P: Little science, big science. New York and London: Columbia University Press; 1963.
• [15]Butte AJ: Translational bioinformatics: coming of age. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008, 15(6):709-714.
• [16]Burke W, Emery J: Genetics education for primary-care providers. Nat Rev Genet 2002, 3(7):561-566.
• [17]Khoury MJ, Little J, Gwinn M, Ioannidis JP: On the synthesis and interpretation of consistent but weak gene–disease associations in the era of genome-wide association studies. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36(2):439-445.
• [18]de Leon J: Evidence-based medicine versus personalized medicine: Are they enemies? J Clin Psychopharmacol 2012, 32(2):153-164. 110.1097/JCP.1090b1013e3182491383
• [19]Siontis GC, Ioannidis JP: Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects. Int J Epidemiol 2011, 40(5):1292-1307.
• [20]Ioannidis JPA: Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 168(4):374-383.
• [21]Panagiotou OA, Ioannidis JPA: Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 65(7):740-747.