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

English version České info

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

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