Published in Br J Cancer on December 08, 2009
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2012) 3.62
Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med (2012) 2.26
Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol (2012) 2.05
Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2011) 1.89
Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Med (2012) 1.85
Identification of serum angiopoietin-2 as a biomarker for clinical outcome of colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab-containing therapy. Br J Cancer (2010) 1.42
Minimal information about T cell assays: the process of reaching the community of T cell immunologists in cancer and beyond. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2010) 1.36
Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med (2014) 1.35
Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature. PLoS Med (2015) 1.25
Knowledge integration in cancer: current landscape and future prospects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2012) 1.19
STRengthening analytical thinking for observational studies: the STRATOS initiative. Stat Med (2014) 1.01
Making research articles fit for purpose: structured reporting of key methods and findings. Trials (2015) 0.99
Gene signatures of breast cancer progression and metastasis. Breast Cancer Res (2011) 0.99
TIA-1 cytotoxic granule-associated RNA binding protein improves the prognostic performance of CD8 in mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancer. PLoS One (2010) 0.95
Five years of Trials. Trials (2011) 0.94
High let-7a microRNA levels in KRAS-mutated colorectal carcinomas may rescue anti-EGFR therapy effects in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic disease. Oncologist (2012) 0.93
Taking a new biomarker into routine use--a perspective from the routine clinical biochemistry laboratory. Proteomics Clin Appl (2010) 0.93
BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation, 53BP1 protein expression and PARP-1 activity as biomarkers of DNA repair deficit in breast cancer. BMC Cancer (2013) 0.91
C-reactive protein and long-term ischemic stroke prognosis. J Clin Neurosci (2013) 0.87
Positive expression of NANOG, mutant p53, and CD44 is directly associated with clinicopathological features and poor prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Oral Health (2015) 0.86
Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies. Br J Cancer (2014) 0.84
Special considerations in prognostic research in cancer involving genetic polymorphisms. BMC Med (2013) 0.83
Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models. BMC Med Res Methodol (2013) 0.82
Predicting Clinical Outcomes Using Molecular Biomarkers. Biomark Cancer (2016) 0.79
An attempt at a molecular prediction of metastasis in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. PLoS One (2012) 0.79
Report on a pilot project to introduce a publications officer. CMAJ (2016) 0.77
The full blood count as a biomarker of outcome and toxicity in ipilimumab-treated cutaneous metastatic melanoma. Cancer Med (2016) 0.77
Methodological issues in current practice may lead to bias in the development of biomarker combinations for predicting acute kidney injury. Kidney Int (2016) 0.75
Improving the Prognostic Ability through Better Use of Standard Clinical Data - The Nottingham Prognostic Index as an Example. PLoS One (2016) 0.75
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet (2001) 31.74
A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials (1996) 7.96
Depression as a risk factor for mortality in patients with coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis. Psychosom Med (2004) 6.69
Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the STEEP system. J Clin Oncol (2007) 6.11
Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med (2006) 5.61
REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer (2005) 4.85
Quantification of the completeness of follow-up. Lancet (2002) 4.77
Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer (2007) 4.44
Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer (1995) 4.10
Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst (2005) 3.41
Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress. Chest (2002) 3.23
Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer (2004) 3.15
Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer (2007) 2.46
Prognostic factors of whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Pain (2003) 2.42
Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat (1998) 2.28
Blood markers for the prognosis of ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Stroke (2009) 1.94
Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer (2003) 1.92
Systematic review of prognostic cohort studies on shoulder disorders. Pain (2004) 1.84
P53 as a prognostic marker for bladder cancer: a meta-analysis and review. Lancet Oncol (2005) 1.79
Prognostic significance of vascular endothelial growth factor immunohistochemical expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 1.48
Selenium binding protein 1 in ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer (2006) 1.47
Quality of reporting of cancer prognostic marker studies: association with reported prognostic effect. J Natl Cancer Inst (2007) 1.42
Use of classical and novel biomarkers as prognostic risk factors for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess (2009) 1.37
Expression of carbonic anhydrase IX in astrocytic tumors predicts poor prognosis. Clin Cancer Res (2006) 1.36
Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond. Br J Cancer (2009) 1.31
Identification of clinically useful cancer prognostic factors: what are we missing? J Natl Cancer Inst (2005) 1.27
Expression of epithelial membrane protein-2 is associated with endometrial adenocarcinoma of unfavorable outcome. Cancer (2006) 1.18
Potential for selection bias with tumor tissue retrieval in molecular epidemiology studies. Ann Epidemiol (2002) 1.08
Survival prediction in patients with glioblastoma multiforme by human telomerase genetic variation. J Clin Oncol (2006) 1.08
Primer: an evidence-based approach to prognostic markers. Nat Clin Pract Oncol (2005) 1.04
Prognostic factors. Confusion caused by bad quality design, analysis and reporting of many studies. Adv Otorhinolaryngol (2005) 0.99
Prognosis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a methodologic meta-analysis. Kidney Int (1997) 0.93
Prognostic factor studies in oncology: osteosarcoma as a clinical example. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2001) 0.89
Prognostic variables in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat (1998) 0.88
Cellular DNA content and survival in advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer (1994) 0.87
Methodological issues associated with tumor marker development. Biostatistical aspects. Urol Oncol (2000) 0.78
A framework for evaluating and conducting prognostic studies: an application to cirrhosis of the liver. J Clin Epidemiol (1989) 0.78
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (1986) 211.50
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA (1995) 45.41
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet (2001) 31.74
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res (1999) 31.11
Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ (1995) 23.46
Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ (2001) 20.65
Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) (1986) 18.51
Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ (1990) 16.69
Cronbach's alpha. BMJ (1997) 13.79
The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ (1994) 11.58
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med (2001) 11.48
Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) (1983) 10.90
Statistics notes. Logarithms. BMJ (1996) 10.56
Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med (1983) 9.80
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess (2003) 9.69
Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet (1995) 9.14
Statistics notes: Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ (2001) 8.98
Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample? Br Med J (1980) 8.78
The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol (1999) 8.60
Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ (1996) 8.39
More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med (1990) 8.26
Dangers of using "optimal" cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst (1994) 7.91
Transforming data. BMJ (1996) 6.78
Regression towards the mean. BMJ (1994) 6.57
Measurement error. BMJ (1996) 6.18
Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Stat Med (1999) 5.94
Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA (1994) 5.80
Risk of bacterial infection associated with allogeneic blood transfusion among patients undergoing hip fracture repair. Transfusion (1999) 5.67
Statistics notes. The odds ratio. BMJ (2000) 5.61
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol (2001) 5.43
Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol (2003) 5.40
How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet (1999) 5.27
Statistics notes. Interaction 2: Compare effect sizes not P values. BMJ (1996) 5.18
Correlation, regression, and repeated data. BMJ (1994) 4.88
Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 1--Correlation within subjects. BMJ (1995) 4.87
REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer (2005) 4.85
Social factors and height of primary schoolchildren in England and Scotland. J Epidemiol Community Health (1978) 4.73
Randomisation. BMJ (1991) 4.66
Patients' preferences and randomised trials. Lancet (1996) 4.64
Measurement error and correlation coefficients. BMJ (1996) 4.38
Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess (2005) 4.33
Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer (1994) 4.22
Measurement error. BMJ (1996) 4.13
Survival analysis part I: basic concepts and first analyses. Br J Cancer (2003) 4.08
Some examples of regression towards the mean. BMJ (1994) 4.01
Survival probabilities (the Kaplan-Meier method). BMJ (1998) 3.98
Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol (2007) 3.84
A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest (2010) 3.83
Effects of a drug overdose in a television drama on presentations to hospital for self poisoning: time series and questionnaire study. BMJ (1999) 3.52
Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ (2011) 3.50
The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer (2013) 3.43
Transformations, means, and confidence intervals. BMJ (1996) 3.42
Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ (1995) 3.35
Measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ (1996) 3.34
National study of health and growth: standards of attained height, weight and triceps skinfold in English children 5 to 11 years old. Ann Hum Biol (1977) 3.23
The use of transformation when comparing two means. BMJ (1996) 3.22
A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med (1990) 3.18
Interaction 3: How to examine heterogeneity. BMJ (1996) 3.17
Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines. Br J Cancer (2004) 3.15
Survival analysis part II: multivariate data analysis--an introduction to concepts and methods. Br J Cancer (2003) 3.06
Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 2--Correlation between subjects. BMJ (1995) 2.94
Randomised trial of educational visits to enhance use of systematic reviews in 25 obstetric units. BMJ (1998) 2.94
Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res (2005) 2.86
Statistics and ethics in medical research. VI--Presentation of results. Br Med J (1980) 2.85
Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol (1999) 2.85
The effects of combining education and enforcement to reduce tobacco sales to minors. A study of four northern California communities. JAMA (1991) 2.77
A prognostic model for ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer (2001) 2.77
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc (2001) 2.71
Survival analysis Part III: multivariate data analysis -- choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit. Br J Cancer (2003) 2.71
Baseline comparisons in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med (1991) 2.69
Predictors of physician's smoking cessation advice. JAMA (1991) 2.66
More informative abstracts. Ann Intern Med (1987) 2.63
Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet (2001) 2.61
Goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Study. J Clin Oncol (2002) 2.61
One and two sided tests of significance. BMJ (1994) 2.61
Building multivariable regression models with continuous covariates in clinical epidemiology--with an emphasis on fractional polynomials. Methods Inf Med (2005) 2.54
Monitoring of large randomised clinical trials: a new approach with Bayesian methods. Lancet (2001) 2.35
c-erbB-2 protein overexpression in breast cancer is a risk factor in patients with involved and uninvolved lymph nodes. Br J Cancer (1991) 2.29
The efficacy of problem-solving treatments after deliberate self-harm: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with respect to depression, hopelessness and improvement in problems. Psychol Med (2001) 2.22
Statistics notes: blinding in clinical trials and other studies. BMJ (2000) 2.17
Indirect comparison in evaluating relative efficacy illustrated by antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Control Clin Trials (2000) 2.04
Serum immunoglobulin concentrations in preschool children measured by laser nephelometry: reference ranges for IgG, IgA, IgM. J Clin Pathol (1983) 2.04
Association between gas cooking and respiratory disease in children. Br Med J (1977) 2.03
Statistics and ethics in medical research. Misuse of statistics is unethical. Br Med J (1980) 2.02
An outline of the revised British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens (1993) 1.99
Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess (2005) 1.96
The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis. BMJ (1996) 1.96
Is the statistical assessment of papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal" effective? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) (1983) 1.92
Authors should make their data available. BMJ (2001) 1.92
The cost-effectiveness of three smoking cessation programs. Am J Public Health (1987) 1.91
Comparing two methods of clinical measurement: a personal history. Int J Epidemiol (1995) 1.87
Beneficial effect of azathioprine and prediction of prognosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. Final results of an international trial. Gastroenterology (1985) 1.86
Statisticians in medical schools. J R Coll Physicians Lond (1990) 1.81
Estimating with confidence. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) (1988) 1.79
Health effects due to occupational exposure to cobalt blue dye among plate painters in a porcelain factory in Denmark. Scand J Work Environ Health (1988) 1.78
Survival analysis part IV: further concepts and methods in survival analysis. Br J Cancer (2003) 1.77
A survey of the nutritional status of schoolchildren. Relation between nutrient intake and socio-economic factors. Br J Prev Soc Med (1973) 1.76