New guidelines issued for reporting of genetic risk research

March 28, 2011 By Krista Conger, Stanford University Medical Center

( -- Apples to Apples is more than just a popular card game. It’s an important concept when comparing the results of published scientific studies. It’s impossible to draw accurate conclusions, for example, without an adequate description of a study’s design, the eligibility criteria for study participants or the identification of the statistical methods used.

“In the absence of guidance, there is wide variability in what investigators report and what they forget to report about their studies,” said study design expert and chief of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, John Ioannidis, MD, DSc. “It is important to make sure that all the essential features about the methods, design and results of a study are transparently available.”

To ensure consistency, many types of research stdies have guidelines specifying how research results should be reported in scientific journals. In March, Ioannidis and a group of risk prediction researchers, epidemiologists, geneticists and others sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network published a similar set of guidelines for one of the hottest scientific and clinical topics today: genetic risk prediction studies. These studies seek to correlate specific DNA sequences with the likelihood that a carrier will develop particular disorders or conditions, and are a key component of what’s known as “personalized medicine.”

A statement about the GRIPS guidelines (for Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies) was recently published simultaneously in 10 journals: the Public Library of Science Medicine; Annals of Internal Medicine; British Medical Journal; Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics; European Journal of Clinical Investigation; European Journal of Epidemiology; European Journal of Human Genetics; Genetics in Medicine; Genome Medicine; and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

“Adhering to these guidelines can be helpful in making the research process more transparent, complete and accurate,” said Ioannidis, who is known for pointing out flaws in many published studies. “This enhances the chances that the results and their interpretation are more appropriate and balanced.”

Much of Ioannidis own work involves strengthening the way that research is planned, carried out and reported. He outlined some of the problems he observed in a 2005 essay in PLoS-Medicine titled, “Why most published research findings are false.” The essay remains the most-downloaded article in the history of the Public Library of Science, according to the journal’s media relations office.

For instance, Ioannidis noted that until five years ago, many studies that linked a genetic variant to a specific disease were often later proven wrong. In some cases, it was because the number of samples used in a study was too small; in others, the way the data were reported skewed the results.

The guidelines don’t tell a researcher how to design a study; only how it should be reported in the scientific literature. “Investigators are free to do as they wish and to follow any type of new innovative design and analysis they feel is preferable for the risk model they have in mind,” said Ioannidis. “It is important, however, for them to record for other researchers what they have done. Genetic risk prediction could have a major impact on personalized medicine. We want to have the best studies informing us about its potential.”

However, the guidelines are not set in stone. They can be changed in the future, or used to guide the direction of future research, according to Ioannidis.

“They specifically give suggestions for careful discussion of the evidence and its limitations. This leads naturally to improving the chances of rational planning as to where we go from here when designing future research. In all, more accuracy and transparency may decrease the dissemination of inflated promises and false-positive claims."

Related Stories

Recommended for you

New software helps detect adaptive genetic mutations

February 20, 2018
Researchers from Brown University have developed a new method for sifting through genomic data in search of genetic variants that have helped populations adapt to their environments. The technique, dubbed SWIF(r), could be ...

New algorithm can pinpoint mutations favored by natural selection in large sections of the human genome

February 20, 2018
A team of scientists has developed an algorithm that can accurately pinpoint, in large regions of the human genome, mutations favored by natural selection. The finding provides deeper insight into how evolution works, and ...

15 new genes identified that shape human faces

February 20, 2018
Researchers from KU Leuven (Belgium) and the universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, and Penn State have identified 15 genes that determine facial features. The findings were published in Nature Genetics.

Highly mutated protein in skin cancer plays central role in skin cell renewal

February 20, 2018
Approximately once a month, our skin completely renews itself. If this highly coordinated process goes awry, it can lead to a variety of skin diseases, ranging from skin cancer to psoriasis. Cells lining such organs as skin ...

Study of smoking and genetics illuminates complexities of blood pressure

February 15, 2018
Analyzing the genetics and smoking habits of more than half a million people has shed new light on the complexities of controlling blood pressure, according to a study led by researchers at Washington University School of ...

New mutation linked to ovarian cancer can be passed down through dad

February 15, 2018
A newly identified mutation, passed down through the X-chromosome, is linked to earlier onset of ovarian cancer in women and prostate cancer in father and sons. Kunle Odunsi, Kevin H. Eng and colleagues at Roswell Park Comprehensive ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.