The abundance of data sets with stored blood or tissue samples, combined with a societal interest in personalized medicine, have led to a proliferation of biomarker studies. However, among the many markers evaluated, few reach clinical practice and guidelines. In fact, highly cited or “first-in-print” studies frequently overestimate biomarker performance compared with subsequent meta-analyses. False-positive or overstated associations can misdirect science and potentially clinical care. Below are some of the questions we at JAMA Cardiology ask when we evaluate biomarker studies and their value to our readership.
↧