| Title |
Older studies can underestimate prognosis of glioblastoma biomarker in meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study for study-level effect in the current literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11060-018-2897-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victor M. Lu, Kevin Phan, Julia X. M. Yin, Kerrie L. McDonald |
| Abstract |
There are many potential biomarkers in glioblastoma (GBM), and meta-analyses represent the highest level of evidence when inferring their prognostic significance. It is possible however, that inherent design properties of the studies included in these meta-analyses may affect the pooled hazard ratio (HR) of the meta-analyses. This meta-epidemiological study aims to investigate the potential bias of three study-level properties in meta-analyses of GBM biomarkers currently published in the literature. Seven electronic databases from inception to December 2017 were searched for meta-analyses evaluating different GBM biomarkers, which were screened against specific criteria. Study-level data were extracted from each meta-analysis, and analyzed using logistic regression to yield the ratio of HR (RHR) summary statistic. Nine meta-analyses investigating different GBM biomarkers were included. Of all the meta-analyses, the HRs of two studies were significantly underestimated by older studies; they investigated biomarkers IDH1 (RHR = 1.145; p = 0.017) and CD133 (RHR = 0.850; p = 0.013). Study-level size and design showed non-significant trends towards affecting the overall HR in all included meta-analyses. This meta-epidemiological study demonstrated that study-level year can already significantly affect the pooled HR of GBM biomarkers reported by meta-analyses. It is possible that in the future, more study-level properties will exert significant effect. In terms of future GBM biomarker meta-analyses, special consideration of bias should be given to these study-level properties as potential sources of effect on the prognostic pooled HR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 33% |
| Portugal | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 38% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 62% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,396,228
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#1,826
of 2,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,813
of 327,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#36
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,989 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.