Dataset Information

STROGAR - STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics.

ABSTRACT: Despite publication of numerous radiogenomics studies to date, positive single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations have rarely been reproduced in independent validation studies. A major reason for these inconsistencies is a high number of false positive findings because no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. It is also possible that some validation studies were false negatives due to methodological shortcomings or a failure to reproduce relevant details of the original study. Transparent reporting is needed to ensure these flaws do not hamper progress in radiogenomics. In response to the need for improving the quality of research in the area, the Radiogenomics Consortium produced an 18-item checklist for reporting radiogenomics studies. It is recognised that not all studies will have recorded all of the information included in the checklist. However, authors should report on all checklist items and acknowledge any missing information. Use of STROGAR guidelines will advance the field of radiogenomics by increasing the transparency and completeness of reporting.

SUBMITTER: Kerns SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4786020 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

STROGAR - STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics.

Kerns Sarah L SL de Ruysscher Dirk D Andreassen Christian N CN Azria David D Barnett Gillian C GC Chang-Claude Jenny J Davidson Susan S Deasy Joseph O JO Dunning Alison M AM Ostrer Harry H Rosenstein Barry S BS West Catharine M L CM Bentzen Søren M SM

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 20130827 1

Despite publication of numerous radiogenomics studies to date, positive single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations have rarely been reproduced in independent validation studies. A major reason for these inconsistencies is a high number of false positive findings because no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. It is also possible that some validation studies were false negatives due to methodological shortcomings or a failure to reproduce relevant details of the original study. ...[more]

PMID: 23993398

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLarge sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline.Methods and findingsWe established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease-gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom.ConclusionsOur aim is for the STROPS guideline to improve the transparency of reporting of pharmacogenetic studies and also to facilitate the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We encourage authors to adhere to the STROPS guideline when publishing pharmacogenetic studies.

Project description:IntroductionLarge sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesise data from several studies, increasing sample size and consequently power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging due to poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies. The aim of this project is to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. The STROPS guideline will facilitate the conduct of high-quality meta-analyses and thus improve the power to detect genetic associations.Methods and analysisWe will establish a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We will then conduct a Delphi survey of key stakeholder groups to gain consensus opinion on which reporting items to include in the final guideline. The Delphi survey will consist of two rounds: the first round will invite participants to score items from the preliminary checklist and to suggest additional relevant items; the second round will provide feedback from the previous round and invite participants to re-score the items. Following the second round, we will summarise the distribution of scores for each item, stratified by stakeholder group. The Steering Committee for the project and representatives from the key stakeholder groups will meet to consider the results of the Delphi survey and to finalise the list of reporting items. We will then draft, pilot-test and publish the STROPS reporting guideline and accompanying explanatory document.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Liverpool Ethics Committee has confirmed ethical approval for this study (reference: 3586). Dissemination activities will include presenting the reporting guideline at conferences relevant to pharmacogenetic research.

Project description:IntroductionStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) coined in 2007, highlighted the importance of improving the quality of observational research by providing an item checklist in order to avoid inadequate reporting of research. However, currently there are no reporting guidelines specific to surgical cohort studies, which have an extremely important role within the surgical literature. The recent development of surgery specific guidelines has underscored how surgical and procedural interventions require additional detail for readers to have a complete, clear, transparent and reproducible understanding. The objective of this research is to conduct a Delphi consensus exercise to develop the STROCSS guideline (Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery).Methods and analysisCurrent guidelines for case series (PROCESS), Cohort Studies (STROBE) and randomised controlled trials (CONSORT) will be analysed to compile items to form baseline material for developing cohort guidelines in the Delphi consensus exercise. The Delphi questionnaire will be administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi Methodology. Surgeons and individuals with significant experience of reviewing cohort studies as well as those with experience in developing reporting guidelines will be invited to participate. In the first round, existing items from PROCESS and STROBE will be put forward and participants will be invited to augment them or contribute further items for consideration. The provisional guidelines will then be updated in successive rounds using the nine-point Likert scale as proposed by the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. This process will be used to agree Standard definitions for the outcomes.DisseminationThe work will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international meetings. Findings will be disseminated to interested parties, and journals will be encouraged to endorse the reporting guidelines.

Dataset Information

STROGAR - STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics.

Publications

STROGAR - STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets