Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Evaluation of excess statistical significance in meta-analyses of 98 biomarker associations with cancer risk||Authors:||Tsilidis, Konstantinos K.
Ioannidis, John P. A.
|Keywords:||Cancer risk;Dietary intake;Effect size;Environmental factor;Helicobacter infection;Hepatitis;Inflammation||Category:||Clinical Medicine||Field:||Medical and Health Sciences||Issue Date:||19-Dec-2012||Publisher:||Oxford University Press||Source:||Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012, Volume 104, Issue 24, Pages 1867-1878||Abstract:||Background Numerous biomarkers have been associated with cancer risk. We assessed whether there is evidence for excess statistical significance in results of cancer biomarker studies, suggesting biases. Methods We systematically searched PubMed for meta-analyses of nongenetic biomarkers and cancer risk. The number of observed studies with statistically significant results was compared with the expected number, based on the statistical power of each study under different assumptions for the plausible effect size. We also evaluated small-study effects using asymmetry tests. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results We included 98 meta-analyses with 847 studies. Forty-three meta-analyses (44%) found nominally statistically significant summary effects (random effects). The proportion of meta-analyses with statistically significant effects was highest for infectious agents (86%), inflammatory (67%), and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)/insulin system (52%) biomarkers. Overall, 269 (32%) individual studies observed nominally statistically significant results. A statistically significant excess of the observed over the expected number of studies with statistically significant results was seen in 20 meta-analyses. An excess of observed vs expected was observed in studies of IGF/insulin (P ≤. 04) and inflammation systems (P ≤. 02). Only 12 meta-analyses (12%) had a statistically significant summary effect size, more than 1000 case patients, and no hints of small-study effects or excess statistical significance; only four of them had large effect sizes, three of which pertained to infectious agents (Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis and human papilloma viruses). Conclusions Most well-documented biomarkers of cancer risk without evidence of bias pertain to infectious agents. Conversely, an excess of statistically significant findings was observed in studies of IGF/insulin and inflammation systems, suggesting reporting biases.||URI:||http://ktisis.cut.ac.cy/handle/10488/4359
|ISSN:||1460-2105||DOI:||10.1093/jnci/djs437||Rights:||© The Author||Type:||Article|
|Appears in Collections:||Άρθρα/Articles|
Show full item record
checked on Dec 17, 2018
WEB OF SCIENCETM
checked on Aug 13, 2019
checked on Aug 18, 2019
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.