Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease
Background:
Systematic evaluations of the quality of research on a single prognostic biomarker are rare. We sought to evaluate the quality of prognostic research evidence for the association of C-reactive protein (CRP) with fatal and nonfatal events among patients with stable coronary disease.
Methods and Findings:
We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and selected prospective studies of patients with stable coronary disease, reporting a relative risk for the association of CRP with death and nonfatal cardiovascular events. We included 83 studies, reporting 61,684 patients and 6,485 outcome events. No study reported a prespecified statistical analysis protocol; only two studies reported the time elapsed (in months or years) between initial presentation of symptomatic coronary disease and inclusion in the study. Studies reported a median of seven items (of 17) from the REMARK reporting guidelines, with no evidence of change over time.
The pooled relative risk for the top versus bottom third of CRP distribution was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–2.17), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5). Only 13 studies adjusted for conventional risk factors (age, sex, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol) and these had a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.39–1.96), I2 = 33.7. Studies reported ten different ways of comparing CRP values, with weaker relative risks for those based on continuous measures. Adjusting for publication bias (for which there was strong evidence, Egger's p<0.001) using a validated method reduced the relative risk to 1.19 (95% CI 1.13–1.25). Only two studies reported a measure of discrimination (c-statistic). In 20 studies the detection rate for subsequent events could be calculated and was 31% for a 10% false positive rate, and the calculated pooled c-statistic was 0.61 (0.57–0.66).
Conclusion:
Multiple types of reporting bias, and publication bias, make the magnitude of any independent association between CRP and prognosis among patients with stable coronary disease sufficiently uncertain that no clinical practice recommendations can be made. Publication of prespecified statistical analytic protocols and prospective registration of studies, among other measures, might help improve the quality of prognostic biomarker research.
: Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Vyšlo v časopise:
Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease. PLoS Med 7(6): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000286
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000286
Souhrn
Background:
Systematic evaluations of the quality of research on a single prognostic biomarker are rare. We sought to evaluate the quality of prognostic research evidence for the association of C-reactive protein (CRP) with fatal and nonfatal events among patients with stable coronary disease.
Methods and Findings:
We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and selected prospective studies of patients with stable coronary disease, reporting a relative risk for the association of CRP with death and nonfatal cardiovascular events. We included 83 studies, reporting 61,684 patients and 6,485 outcome events. No study reported a prespecified statistical analysis protocol; only two studies reported the time elapsed (in months or years) between initial presentation of symptomatic coronary disease and inclusion in the study. Studies reported a median of seven items (of 17) from the REMARK reporting guidelines, with no evidence of change over time.
The pooled relative risk for the top versus bottom third of CRP distribution was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–2.17), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5). Only 13 studies adjusted for conventional risk factors (age, sex, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol) and these had a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.39–1.96), I2 = 33.7. Studies reported ten different ways of comparing CRP values, with weaker relative risks for those based on continuous measures. Adjusting for publication bias (for which there was strong evidence, Egger's p<0.001) using a validated method reduced the relative risk to 1.19 (95% CI 1.13–1.25). Only two studies reported a measure of discrimination (c-statistic). In 20 studies the detection rate for subsequent events could be calculated and was 31% for a 10% false positive rate, and the calculated pooled c-statistic was 0.61 (0.57–0.66).
Conclusion:
Multiple types of reporting bias, and publication bias, make the magnitude of any independent association between CRP and prognosis among patients with stable coronary disease sufficiently uncertain that no clinical practice recommendations can be made. Publication of prespecified statistical analytic protocols and prospective registration of studies, among other measures, might help improve the quality of prognostic biomarker research.
: Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Zdroje
1. HemingwayH
RileyRD
AltmanDG
2009 Ten steps towards improving prognosis research. BMJ 339 b4184
2. KyzasPA
LoizouKT
IoannidisJP
2005 Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 1043 1055
3. KyzasPA
axa-KyzaD
IoannidisJP
2007 Quality of reporting of cancer prognostic marker studies: association with reported prognostic effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 236 243
4. RileyRD
AbramsKR
SuttonAJ
LambertPC
JonesDR
2003 Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer 88 1191 1198
5. MalatsN
BustosA
NascimentoCM
FernandezF
RivasM
2005 P53 as a prognostic marker for bladder cancer: a meta-analysis and review. Lancet Oncol 6 678 686
6. KaptogeS
Di AngelantonioE
LoweG
PepysMB
Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration 2010 C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. Lancet 375 132 140
7. HemingwayH
HenrikksonM
ChenR
DamantJ
FitzpatrickNK
2010 The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for the prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary revascularisation: a systematic review and decision model. Health Technol Assess 14 1 151
8. PearsonTA
MensahGA
AlexanderRW
AndersonJL
CannonRO
III 2003 Markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease: application to clinical and public health practice: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association. Circulation 107 499 511
9. FoxK
GarciaMA
ArdissinoD
BuszmanP
CamiciPG
2006 Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: the Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 27 1341 1381
10. YoungI
RifaiN
2009 High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and cardiovascular disease. Clin Chem 55 201 202
11. StroupDF
BerlinJA
MortonSC
OlkinI
WilliamsonGD
2000 Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283 2008 2012
12. McShaneLM
AltmanDG
SauerbreiW
TaubeSE
GionM
2005 Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 97 1180 1184
13. CasasJP
ShahT
HingoraniAD
DaneshJ
PepysMB
2008 C-reactive protein and coronary heart disease: a critical review. J Intern Med 264 295 314
14. TimpsonNJ
LawlorDA
HarbordRM
GauntTR
DayIN
2005 C-reactive protein and its role in metabolic syndrome: mendelian randomisation study. Lancet 366 1954 1959
15. MorenoSG
SuttonAJ
TurnerEH
AbramsKR
CooperNJ
2009 Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications. BMJ 339 b2981
16. HlatkyMA
GreenlandP
ArnettDK
BallantyneCM
CriquiMH
2009 Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 119 2408 2416
17. AltmanDG
2001 Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323 224 228
18. DaneshJ
CollinsR
ApplebyP
PetoR
1998 Association of fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, albumin, or leukocyte count with coronary heart disease: meta-analyses of prospective studies. JAMA 279 1477 1482
19. ShahT
CasasJP
CooperJA
TzoulakiI
SofatR
2009 Critical appraisal of CRP measurement for the prediction of coronary heart disease events: new data and systematic review of 31 prospective cohorts. Int J Epidemiol 38 217 231
20. DaneshJ
CollinsR
ApplebyP
PetoR
1998 Association of fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, albumin, or leukocyte count with coronary heart disease: meta-analyses of prospective studies. JAMA 279 1477 1482
21. DerSimonianR
LairdN
1986 Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7 177 188
22. HigginsJP
ThompsonSG
2002 Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21 1539 1558
23. SterneJA
EggerM
SmithGD
2001 Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 323 101 105
24. PetersJL
SuttonAJ
JonesDR
AbramsKR
RushtonL
2006 Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 295 676 680
25. MorenoSG
SuttonAJ
AdesAE
StanleyTD
AbramsKR
2009 Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 9 2
26. WaldNJ
HackshawAK
FrostCD
1999 When can a risk factor be used as a worthwhile screening test? BMJ 319 1562 1565
27. LawMR
WaldNJ
MorrisJK
2004 The performance of blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors as screening tests for ischaemic heart disease and stroke. J Med Screen 11 3 7
28. ObuchowskiNA
McClishDK
1997 Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 16 1529 1542
29. KyzasPA
Denaxa-KyzaD
IoannidisJP
2007 Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer 43 2559 2579
30. WhiteleyW
ChongWL
SenguptaA
SandercockP
2009 Blood markers for the prognosis of ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Stroke 40 e380 e389
31. PerelP
EdwardsP
WentzR
RobertsI
2006 Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 6 38
32. HaydenJA
ChouR
Hogg-JohnsonS
BombardierC
2009 Systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis had variable methods and results-guidance for future prognosis reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 781 796
33. PengelLH
HerbertRD
MaherCG
RefshaugeKM
2003 Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. BMJ 327 323
34. SackettDL
WhelanG
1980 Cancer risk in ulcerative colitis: scientific requirements for the study of prognosis. Gastroenterology 78 1632 1635
35. Gould RothbergBE
BrackenMB
RimmDL
2009 Tissue biomarkers for prognosis in cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 452 474
36. BodenWE
O'RourkeRA
TeoKK
HartiganPM
MaronDJ
2007 Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356 1503 1516
37. SekhriN
TimmisA
ChenR
JunghansC
WalshN
2008 Inequity of access to investigation and effect on clinical outcomes: prognostic study of coronary angiography for suspected stable angina pectoris. BMJ 336 1058 1061
38. SekhriN
FederGS
JunghansC
HemingwayH
TimmisAD
2007 How effective are rapid access chest pain clinics? Prognosis of incident angina and non-cardiac chest pain in 8762 consecutive patients. Heart 93 458 463
39. HemingwayH
McCallumA
ShipleyM
ManderbackaK
MartikainenP
2006 Incidence and prognostic implications of stable angina pectoris among women and men. JAMA 295 1404 1411
40. ClaytonTC
LubsenJ
PocockSJ
VokoZ
KirwanBA
2005 Risk score for predicting death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with stable angina, based on a large randomised trial cohort of patients. BMJ 331 869
41. DalyCA
ClemensF
Lopez SendonJL
TavazziL
BoersmaE
2005 The initial management of stable angina in Europe, from the Euro Heart Survey: a description of pharmacological management and revascularization strategies initiated within the first month of presentation to a cardiologist in the Euro Heart Survey of Stable Angina. Eur Heart J 26 1011 1022
42. HenrikssonM
PalmerS
ChenR
DamantJ
FitzpatrickNK
2010 Assessing the cost effectiveness of using prognostic biomarkers with decision models: case study in prioritising patients waiting for coronary artery surgery. BMJ 340 b5606
43. CasasJP
ShahT
CooperJ
HaweE
McMahonAD
2006 Insight into the nature of the CRP-coronary event association using Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 35 922 931
44. ElliottP
ChambersJC
ZhangW
ClarkeR
HopewellJC
2009 Genetic loci associated with C-reactive protein levels and risk of coronary heart disease. JAMA 302 37 48
45. LawlorDA
HarbordRM
TimpsonNJ
LoweGD
RumleyA
2008 The association of C-reactive protein and CRP genotype with coronary heart disease: findings from five studies with 4,610 cases amongst 18,637 participants. PLoS One 3 e3011 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003011
46. ZachoJ
Tybjaerg-HansenA
JensenJS
GrandeP
SillesenH
2008 Genetically elevated C-reactive protein and ischemic vascular disease. N Engl J Med 359 1897 1908
47. LangeLA
CarlsonCS
HindorffLA
LangeEM
WalstonJ
2006 Association of polymorphisms in the CRP gene with circulating C-reactive protein levels and cardiovascular events. JAMA 296 2703 2711
48. Romero-CorralA
MontoriVM
SomersVK
KorinekJ
ThomasRJ
2006 Association of bodyweight with total mortality and with cardiovascular events in coronary artery disease: a systematic review of cohort studies. Lancet 368 666 678
49. RileyRD
SauerbreiW
AltmanDG
2009 Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond. Br J Cancer 100 1219 1229
50. HaydenJA
CoteP
BombardierC
2006 Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 144 427 437
51. HaydenJA
CoteP
SteenstraIA
BombardierC
2008 Identifying phases of investigation helps planning, appraising, and applying the results of explanatory prognosis studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61 552 560
52. KuperH
NicholsonA
KivimakiM
Aitsi-SelmiA
CavalleriG
2009 Evaluating the causal relevance of diverse risk markers: horizontal systematic review. BMJ 339 b4265
53. PepysMB
HirschfieldGM
TennentGA
GallimoreJR
KahanMC
2006 Targeting C-reactive protein for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Nature 440 1217 1221
Štítky
Interné lekárstvoČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Medicine
2010 Číslo 6
- Parazitičtí červi v terapii Crohnovy choroby a dalších zánětlivých autoimunitních onemocnění
- Pleiotropní účinky statinů na kardiovaskulární systém
- Statiny indukovaná myopatie: Jak na diferenciální diagnostiku?
- Zástava srdce u pacienta se střelnými ranami – kazuistika
- Statinová intolerance
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Gestational Age at Delivery and Special Educational Need: Retrospective Cohort Study of 407,503 Schoolchildren
- Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease
- Closing the Gaps: From Science to Action in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health in Africa
- Maternal Health: Time to Deliver