Table 36Study quality assessment, KQ5, ovarian cancer

StudyProspective designPrespecified hypotheses about relation of marker to outcomeLarge, well-define d, representative study populationMarker assay methods well-describedBlinded assessment of marker in relation to outcomeHomogeneous treatment(s), either randomized or rule-based selectionLow rate of missing data (≤ 15%)Sufficiently long followupWell-described, well-conducted multivariate analysis of outcome: 1) clear candidate variable selection, 2) clear, appropriate model-building guidelines, 3) assumptions tested, 4) standard prognostic variables included, 5) continuous variables well handled, 6) validation
1)2)3)4)5)6)
Malamou-Mitsi et al., 2007YNNY?YY?YN?Y?N
Di Leo et al., 1995YYNNYYY??????N
Camilleri-Broet et al., 2004YNNY?YNmedian 68 months?????N
Bookman et al., 2003YNNYYYY8 weeksNA
Bowman et al., 2002YNNN?YN?NA
Campos et al., 2001NNNY?YY≥ 30 daysNA
Hengstler et al., 1999NNNY?YY?NA

From: 3, Results and Conclusions

Cover of HER2 Testing to Manage Patients With Breast Cancer or Other Solid Tumors
HER2 Testing to Manage Patients With Breast Cancer or Other Solid Tumors.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 172.
Seidenfeld J, Samson DJ, Rothenberg BM, et al.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.