Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.

<h4>Background</h4>We investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We used a full...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Walter Bouwmeester, Nicolaas P A Zuithoff, Susan Mallett, Mirjam I Geerlings, Yvonne Vergouwe, Ewout W Steyerberg, Douglas G Altman, Karel G M Moons
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f1556f5354f64109af545747650616db
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f1556f5354f64109af545747650616db
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f1556f5354f64109af545747650616db2021-11-18T05:42:16ZReporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.1549-12771549-167610.1371/journal.pmed.1001221https://doaj.org/article/f1556f5354f64109af545747650616db2012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22629234/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1549-1277https://doaj.org/toc/1549-1676<h4>Background</h4>We investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We used a full hand search to identify all prediction studies published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals. We developed a comprehensive item list to systematically score conduct and reporting of the studies, based on recent recommendations for prediction research. Two reviewers independently scored the studies. We retrieved 71 papers for full text review: 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three addressed an external validation of a previously developed model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design was unclear in 15% of studies, and a prospective cohort was used in most studies (60%). Descriptions of the participants and definitions of predictor and outcome were generally good. Despite many recommendations against doing so, continuous predictors were often dichotomized (32% of studies). The number of events per predictor as a measure of statistical power could not be determined in 67% of the studies; of the remainder, 53% had fewer than the commonly recommended value of ten events per predictor. Methods for a priori selection of candidate predictors were described in most studies (68%). A substantial number of studies relied on a p-value cut-off of p<0.05 to select predictors in the multivariable analyses (29%). Predictive model performance measures, i.e., calibration and discrimination, were reported in 12% and 27% of studies, respectively.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The majority of prediction studies in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability.Walter BouwmeesterNicolaas P A ZuithoffSusan MallettMirjam I GeerlingsYvonne VergouweEwout W SteyerbergDouglas G AltmanKarel G M MoonsPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRENPLoS Medicine, Vol 9, Iss 5, Pp 1-12 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R
spellingShingle	Medicine R Walter Bouwmeester Nicolaas P A Zuithoff Susan Mallett Mirjam I Geerlings Yvonne Vergouwe Ewout W Steyerberg Douglas G Altman Karel G M Moons Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
description	<h4>Background</h4>We investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We used a full hand search to identify all prediction studies published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals. We developed a comprehensive item list to systematically score conduct and reporting of the studies, based on recent recommendations for prediction research. Two reviewers independently scored the studies. We retrieved 71 papers for full text review: 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three addressed an external validation of a previously developed model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design was unclear in 15% of studies, and a prospective cohort was used in most studies (60%). Descriptions of the participants and definitions of predictor and outcome were generally good. Despite many recommendations against doing so, continuous predictors were often dichotomized (32% of studies). The number of events per predictor as a measure of statistical power could not be determined in 67% of the studies; of the remainder, 53% had fewer than the commonly recommended value of ten events per predictor. Methods for a priori selection of candidate predictors were described in most studies (68%). A substantial number of studies relied on a p-value cut-off of p<0.05 to select predictors in the multivariable analyses (29%). Predictive model performance measures, i.e., calibration and discrimination, were reported in 12% and 27% of studies, respectively.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The majority of prediction studies in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability.
format	article
author	Walter Bouwmeester Nicolaas P A Zuithoff Susan Mallett Mirjam I Geerlings Yvonne Vergouwe Ewout W Steyerberg Douglas G Altman Karel G M Moons
author_facet	Walter Bouwmeester Nicolaas P A Zuithoff Susan Mallett Mirjam I Geerlings Yvonne Vergouwe Ewout W Steyerberg Douglas G Altman Karel G M Moons
author_sort	Walter Bouwmeester
title	Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
title_short	Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
title_full	Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
title_fullStr	Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
title_full_unstemmed	Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
title_sort	reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/f1556f5354f64109af545747650616db
work_keys_str_mv	AT walterbouwmeester reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT nicolaaspazuithoff reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT susanmallett reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT mirjamigeerlings reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT yvonnevergouwe reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT ewoutwsteyerberg reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT douglasgaltman reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview AT karelgmmoons reportingandmethodsinclinicalpredictionresearchasystematicreview
_version_	1718424827435417600

Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.

Ejemplares similares