The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews

5Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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. © 2012 Choong and Tsafnat; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

References Powered by Scopus

Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework

5344Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Central Challenges Facing the National Clinical Research Enterprise

1018Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up?

840Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Methods and Challenges in Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Development

74Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain

42Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Polyamine biomarkers as indicators of human disease

36Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choong, M. K., & Tsafnat, G. (2012). The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-176

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

48%

Researcher 6

29%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

14%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 14

70%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

15%

Social Sciences 2

10%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free