Search

Context: Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed., Objective: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes., Evidence Acquisition: This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors., Evidence Synthesis: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document., Conclusions: To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org)., Patient Summary: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed., Methods: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors., Results: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document., Conclusions: To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org)., (© 2015 The Authors.)

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major and increasing constituent of disease burdens worldwide. Early identification of patients at increased risk of developing CKD can guide interventions to slow disease progression, initiate timely referral to appropriate kidney care services, and support targeting of care resources. Risk prediction models can extend laboratory-based CKD screening to earlier stages of disease; however, to date, only a few of them have been externally validated or directly compared outside development populations. Our objective was to validate published CKD prediction models applicable in primary care.Methods: We synthesised two recent systematic reviews of CKD risk prediction models and externally validated selected models for a 5-year horizon of disease onset. We used linked, anonymised, structured (coded) primary and secondary care data from patients resident in Salford (population ~234 k), UK. All adult patients with at least one record in 2009 were followed-up until the end of 2014, death, or CKD onset (n = 178,399). CKD onset was defined as repeated impaired eGFR measures over a period of at least 3 months, or physician diagnosis of CKD Stage 3-5. For each model, we assessed discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis.Results: Seven relevant CKD risk prediction models were identified. Five models also had an associated simplified scoring system. All models discriminated well between patients developing CKD or not, with c-statistics around 0.90. Most of the models were poorly calibrated to our population, substantially over-predicting risk. The two models that did not require recalibration were also the ones that had the best performance in the decision curve analysis.Conclusions: Included CKD prediction models showed good discriminative ability but over-predicted the actual 5-year CKD risk in English primary care patients. QKidney, the only UK-developed model, outperformed the others. Clinical prediction models should be (re)calibrated for their intended uses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An accurate risk score able to predict in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing surgery may improve both risk communication and clinical decision making. The aim of the study was to develop and validate a surgical risk score based solely on preoperative information, for predicting in-hospital mortality.Methods: From January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010, data related to all surgeries requiring anesthesia were collected from all centers (single hospital or hospitals group) in France performing more than 500 operations in the year on patients aged 18 yr or older (n = 5,507,834). International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes were used to summarize the medical history of patients. From these data, the authors developed a risk score by examining 29 preoperative factors (age, comorbidities, and surgery type) in 2,717,902 patients, and then validated the risk score in a separate cohort of 2,789,932 patients.Results: In the derivation cohort, there were 12,786 in-hospital deaths (0.47%; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.48%), whereas in the validation cohort there were 14,933 in-hospital deaths (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.55%). Seventeen predictors were identified and included in the PreOperative Score to predict PostOperative Mortality (POSPOM). POSPOM showed good calibration and excellent discrimination for in-hospital mortality, with a c-statistic of 0.944 (95% CI, 0.943 to 0.945) in the development cohort and 0.929 (95% CI, 0.928 to 0.931) in the validation cohort.Conclusion: The authors have developed and validated POSPOM, a simple risk score for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in surgical patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Carl Moons and colleagues provide a checklist and background explanation for critically appraising and extracting data from systematic reviews of prognostic and diagnostic prediction modelling studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Different methods of evaluating diagnostic performance when comparing diagnostic tests may lead to different results. We compared two such approaches, sensitivity and specificity with area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC AUC) for the evaluation of CT colonography for the detection of polyps, either with or without computer assisted detection. Methods: In a multireader multicase study of 10 readers and 107 cases we compared sensitivity and specificity, using radiological reporting of the presence or absence of polyps, to ROC AUC calculated from confidence scores concerning the presence of polyps. Both methods were assessed against a reference standard. Here we focus on five readers, selected to illustrate issues in design and analysis. We compared diagnostic measures within readers, showing that differences in results are due to statistical methods. Results: Reader performance varied widely depending on whether sensitivity and specificity or ROC AUC was used. There were problems using confidence scores; in assigning scores to all cases; in use of zero scores when no polyps were identified; the bimodal non-normal distribution of scores; fitting ROC curves due to extrapolation beyond the study data; and the undue influence of a few false positive results. Variation due to use of different ROC methods exceeded differences between test results for ROC AUC. Conclusions: The confidence scores recorded in our study violated many assumptions of ROC AUC methods, rendering these methods inappropriate. The problems we identified will apply to other detection studies using confidence scores. We found sensitivity and specificity were a more reliable and clinically appropriate method to compare diagnostic tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the performance of QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) for predicting the risk of undiagnosed gastro-oesophageal cancer in an independent UK cohort of patients from general practice records. Design: Open cohort study to validate QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) prediction model. Three hundred sixty-five practices from the United Kingdom contributing to The Health Improvement Network database. 2.1 million patients registered with a general practice surgery between 01 January 2000 and 30 June 2008, aged 30–84years (3.7 million person years) with 1766 gastro-oesophageal cancer cases. The outcome, gastro-oesophageal cancer was defined as incident diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal cancer during the 2years after study entry. Results: The results from this independent and external validation of QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) demonstrated good performance data on a large cohort of general practice patients. QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) had very good discrimination with c-statistics of 0.93 and 0.94 for women and men respectively. QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) was well calibrated across all tenths of risk and over all age ranges with predicted risks closely matching observed risks. QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) explained 74.4% and 75.6% of the variation in men and women respectively. Conclusions: QCancer® (Gastro-Oesophageal) is a useful tool to identify undiagnosed gastro-oesophageal cancer in primary care in the United Kingdom. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of diagnostic test accuracy and highlights several different ways of presenting and interpreting data. A diagnostic test accuracy study provides evidence on how well a test correctly identifies or rules out disease and informs subsequent decisions about treatment. The article mentions using paired results such as sensitivity and specificity, or alternatively positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and other methods such as the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC AUC).

Discusses the characteristic of Castleman disease. Common sites involved in the development of the disease; Variants of the disorder; Prevalence of the hyaline vascular type in pediatric cases of Castleman disease.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Prognostic nomogram for refining the prognostication of the proposed 8th edition of the AJCC/UICC staging system for nasopharyngeal cancer in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy," by J. J. Pan and colleagues in the 2016 issue.

A correction to the article "Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting: the GATHER statement" that was published in the 2016 issue is presented.

Health care provision is increasingly focused on the prediction of patients' individual risk for developing a particular health outcome in planning further tests and treatments. There has been a steady increase in the development and publication of prognostic models for various maternal and fetal outcomes in obstetrics. We undertook a systematic review to give an overview of the current status of available prognostic models in obstetrics in the context of their potential advantages and the process of developing and validating models. Important aspects to consider when assessing a prognostic model are discussed and recommendations on how to proceed on this within the obstetric domain are given. We searched MEDLINE (up to July 2012) for articles developing prognostic models in obstetrics. We identified 177 papers that reported the development of 263 prognostic models for 40 different outcomes. The most frequently predicted outcomes were preeclampsia (n = 69), preterm delivery (n = 63), mode of delivery (n = 22), gestational hypertension (n = 11), and small-for-gestational-age infants (n = 10). The performance of newer models was generally not better than that of older models predicting the same outcome. The most important measures of predictive accuracy (ie, a model's discrimination and calibration) were often (82.9%, 218/263) not both assessed. Very few developed models were validated in data other than the development data (8.7%, 23/263). Only two-thirds of the papers (62.4%, 164/263) presented the model such that validation in other populations was possible, and the clinical applicability was discussed in only 11.0% (29/263). The impact of developed models on clinical practice was unknown. We identified a large number of prognostic models in obstetrics, but there is relatively little evidence about their performance, impact, and usefulness in clinical practice so that at this point, clinical implementation cannot be recommended. New efforts should be directed toward evaluating the performance and impact of the existing models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]