STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) – an extension of the STROBE statement
Tóm tắt
Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Khoury MJ, 2004, Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease, 3
Genomics, Health and Society Working Group, 2004, Genomics, Health and Society. Emerging Issues for Public Policy
Yu Y, 2008, HuGE Literature Finder
Little J, 2004, Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease, 168
Rebbeck TR, 2004, Genetic variation and cancer: improving the environment for publication of association studies, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 13, 1985, 10.1158/1055-9965.1985.13.12
Anonymous, 2005, Framework for a fully powered risk engine, Nat Genet, 37
Brazma A, 2001, Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) – Toward standards for microarray data, Nat Genet, 29, 356, 10.1038/ng1201-365
Little J, 2006, The HuGENet™ HuGE Review Handbook, version 1.0
Rothman N, 1993, Misclassification of genetic susceptibility biomarkers: implications for case‐control studies and cross‐population comparisons, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2, 299
Garcia‐Closas M, 2004, Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease, 127
Knowler WC, 1988, Gm3;5,13,14 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: an association in American Indians with genetic admixture, Am J Human Genet, 43, 520
Gelernter J, 1993, The A1 allele at the D2 dopamine receptor gene and alcoholism: a reappraisal, JAMA, 269, 1673, 10.1001/jama.1993.03500130087038
Thomas DC, 2002, Point: population stratification: a problem for case control studies of candidate‐gene associations?, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 11, 505
Wacholder S, 2002, Joint effects of genes and environment distorted by selection biases: implications for hospital‐based case‐control studies, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 11, 885
Khlat M, 2004, Robustness of case‐control studies of genetic factors to population stratification: magnitude of bias and type I error, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 13, 1660, 10.1158/1055-9965.1660.13.10
Weinberg W, 1908, Über den nachweis der vererbung beim menschen, Jahrhefte Des Vereines Für Vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg, 64, 368
Shoemaker J, 1998, A Bayesian characterization of Hardy–Weinberg disequilibrium, Genetics, 149, 2079, 10.1093/genetics/149.4.2079
Steinberg K, 2004, Human Genome epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease, 79