Abstract
Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers
in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change susceptibility
and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between
external and/or endogenous agents and body components or processes. The need for improved
reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations
such as the STrengthening Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)
statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on
how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist
of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the
three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional
studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology
– Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE statement implementing 9 existing items
of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The
additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection,
handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability
of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME
recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Wild C. Vineis P. Garte S. Molecular epidemiology of chronic diseases. Wiley, 2008
- Individual susceptibility to carcinogens.Oncogene. 2004; 23: 6477-6483
- Biomarkers in molecular epidemiology studies for health risk prediction.Mutat Res. 2002; 511: 73-86
- The changing face of epidemiology in the genomics era.Epidemiology. 2002; 13: 472-480
- The future of molecular epidemiology.Int J Epidemiol. 1999; 28: S1012-S1014
- Design options for molecular epidemiology research within cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol.Biomarkers Prev. 2005; 14: 1899-1907
- Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK).J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97: 1180-1184
- Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results.Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43: 2559-2579
- Epidemiology, public health and the rhetoric of false positives.Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117: 1809-1813
- Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97: 1043-1055
- Comparison of effect sizes of biomarkers reported in highly-cited articles versus subsequent meta-analyses.JAMA. 2011; 305: 2200-2210
- Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research.Clin Chem. 2009; 55: 786-794
Ioannidis JP, Tarone R, McLaughlin JK. The False-positive to False-negative Ratio in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology. 2011, in press.
- CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.PLoS Med. 2010; 7: e1000251
- The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003; 3: 25
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e296
- STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.PLoS Med. 2007 Oct 16; 4 (Review): e297
- Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies.Ophthalmology. 2009; 116: 286-296
- Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study.BMJ. 2010; (doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048. Open)
- Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA)-an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62 (597–608.e4)
- Ethics and data protection in human biomarker studies.ECNIS Publications, Lodz2010
- Reporting results of human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals to study participants: a comparison of approaches followed in two Canadian studies.J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011; 65: 191-198
- Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation.Nat Rev Cancer. 2004; 4: 309-314
- Porta M. A dictionary of epidemiology. 5th. edition. Oxford University Press, New York2008: 21 (69, 129–130, 152, 157–158)
- Influence of tumor stage, symptoms and time of blood draw on serum concentrations of organochlorine compounds in exocrine pancreatic cancer.Cancer Causes Control. 2009; 20: 1893-1906
- Timing of blood extraction in epidemiologic and proteomic studies. Results and proposals from the PANKRAS II Study.Eur J Epidemiol. 2007; 22: 577-588
- Exposure to genotoxins present in ambient air in Bangkok, Thailand - particle associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biomarkers.Sci Total Environ. 2002; 287: 121-132
- Personal exposure to PM2.5 and biomarkers of DNA damage.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12: 191-196
- DNA damage and antioxidants; fluctuations through the year in a central European population group.Food Chem Toxicol. 2002; 40: 1119-1123
- Nutritional and lifestyle determinants of DNA oxidative damage: a study in a Mediterranean population.Carcinogenesis. 2002; 23: 1483-1489
- Sunlight-induced DNA damage in human mononuclear cells.FASEB Journal. 2002; 16: 45-53
- Genetic and molecular epidemiology.J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61: 757-758
- Standardization and validation of DNA adduct postlabelling methods: report of interlaboratory trials and production of recommended protocols.Mutagenesis. 1999; 14: 301-315
- Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data.Nat Rev Genet. 2010; 11: 733-739
- An empirical assessment of validation practices for molecular classifiers.Brief Bioinform. 2011 May; 12 (Epub 2011 Feb 7): 189-202
- What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?.Stat Med. 2000 Feb 29; 19: 453-473
- Why have we failed to find the low penetrance genetic constituents of common cancers?.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002; 11: 1544-1549
- Genetic biomarkers and occupational epidemiology –recollections, reflections and reconsiderations.Scand J Work Environ Health. 2004; 30: 1-3
- Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.PLoS Med. 2010; 7 (2010): e1000217
- Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR network’s survey of guideline authors.PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e139
- A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research.Eur J Clin Invest. 2010; 40: 35-53
- Molecular epidemiology and biomarkers in etiologic cancer research: the new in light of the old.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007; 16: 1954-1965
- Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001; 69: 89-95
- Phenotyping for DNA repair capacity.Mutat Res. 2010; 705: 107-129
- What makes a good predictor? the evidence applied to coronary artery calcium score.JAMA. 2010; 303: 1646-1647
- Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond.Br J Cancer. 2009; 100: 1219-1229
- New Prognostic Markers for Outcome of Acute Pancreatitis: Overview of Reporting in 184 Studies.Pancreas. 2011; 40: 522-532
- Validation of biomarkers for the study of environmental carcinogens: a review.Biomarkers. 2008; 13: 505-534
- Epidemiological concepts of validation of biomarkers for the identification/quantification of environmental carcinogenic exposures.ECNIS, Poland2007
- Molecular epidemiology.in: Ahrens W. Pigeot I. Handbook of Epidemiology. Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg2005: 1111-1138
- Bias from nondifferential but dependent misclassification of exposure and outcome.Epidemiology. 1992; 3: 210-215
- Sources of variation in biomarkers.IARC Sci Publ. 1997; 142: 59-71
- Ethical aspects of molecular epidemiology of cancer.Carcinogenesis. 2004; 25: 465-471
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
May 24,
2011
Footnotes
This article is being simultaneously published in 2011 in PLoS medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine, Mutagenegis, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, European Journal of Epidemiology, and European Journal of Clinical Investigation. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article.
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology — Molecular Epidemiology STROBE-ME: an extension of the STROBE statement [J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1350–1363]Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 65Issue 7
- PreviewAn error in the text on page 1357 has been noted. In the section identified as “4.5. ME-4.1 – Report on the setting of the biological sample collection; amount of sample; nature of collecting procedures; participant conditions; time between sample collection and relevant clinical or physiological endpoints” the final sentence of the first paragraph states that “Proteins and cholesterol levels can be lowered by 5-15%.” This is incorrect, and the corrected text should read “Proteins and cholesterol levels can be increased by 5-15%.”
- Full-Text
- Preview
