Objectives Our main objective was to raise awareness of the areas that need improvements in the reporting of genetic risk prediction articles for future publications, based on the Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) statement. Study Design and Setting We evaluated studies that developed or validated a prediction model based on multiple DNA variants, using empirical data, and were published in 2010. A data extraction form based on the 25 items of the GRIPS statement was created and piloted. Results Forty-two studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, more than half of the evaluated items (34 of 62) were reported in at least 85% of included articles. Seventy-seven percentage of the articles were identified as genetic risk prediction studies through title assessment, but only 31% used the keywords recommended by GRIPS in the title or abstract. Seventy-four percentage mentioned which allele was the risk variant. Overall, only 10% of the articles reported all essential items needed to perform external validation of the risk model. Conclusion Completeness of reporting in genetic risk prediction studies is adequate for general elements of study design but is suboptimal for several aspects that characterize genetic risk prediction studies such as description of the model construction. Improvements in the transparency of reporting of these aspects would facilitate the identification, replication, and application of genetic risk prediction models.

Epidemiology, Genetic, GRIPS, Reporting guideline, Review, Risk prediction
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.006, hdl.handle.net/1765/67555
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Iglesias González, A.I, Mihaescu, R, Ioannidis, J.P.A, Khoury, M.J, Little, J, van Duijn, C.M, & Janssens, A.C.J.W. (2014). Scientific reporting is suboptimal for aspects that characterize genetic risk prediction studies: A review of published articles based on the Genetic risk prediction studies statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Vol. 67, pp. 487–499). doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.006