Association between pregnancy-related complications and development of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in women: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Despite many systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the associations of pregnancy complications with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension, previous umbrella reviews have only examined a single pregnancy complication. Here we have synthesised evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the associations of a wide range of pregnancy-related complications with risk of developing T2DM and hypertension. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception until 26 September 2022 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis examining the association between pregnancy complications and risk of T2DM and hypertension. Screening of articles, data extraction and quality appraisal (AMSTAR2) were conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence software. Data were extracted for studies that examined the risk of T2DM and hypertension in pregnant women with the pregnancy complication compared to pregnant women without the pregnancy complication. Summary estimates of each review were presented using tables, forest plots and narrative synthesis and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) guidelines. RESULTS: Ten systematic reviews were included. Two pregnancy complications were identified. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM): One review showed GDM was associated with a 10-fold higher risk of T2DM at least 1 year after pregnancy (relative risk (RR) 9.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.14 to 12.67) and although the association differed by ethnicity (white: RR 16.28 (95% CI 15.01 to 17.66), non-white: RR 10.38 (95% CI 4.61 to 23.39), mixed: RR 8.31 (95% CI 5.44 to 12.69)), the between subgroups difference were not statistically significant at 5% significance level. Another review showed GDM was associated with higher mean blood pressure at least 3 months postpartum (mean difference in systolic blood pressure: 2.57 (95% CI 1.74 to 3.40) mmHg and mean difference in diastolic blood pressure: 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.46) mmHg). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP): Three reviews showed women with a history of HDP were 3 to 6 times more likely to develop hypertension at least 6 weeks after pregnancy compared to women without HDP (meta-analysis with largest number of studies: odds ratio (OR) 4.33 (3.51 to 5.33)) and one review reported a higher rate of T2DM after HDP (hazard ratio (HR) 2.24 (1.95 to 2.58)) at least a year after pregnancy. One of the three reviews and five other reviews reported women with a history of preeclampsia were 3 to 7 times more likely to develop hypertension at least 6 weeks postpartum (meta-analysis with the largest number of studies: OR 3.90 (3.16 to 4.82) with one of these reviews reporting the association was greatest in women from Asia (Asia: OR 7.54 (95% CI 2.49 to 22.81), Europe: OR 2.19 (95% CI 0.30 to 16.02), North and South America: OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.26 to 8.74)). CONCLUSIONS: GDM and HDP are associated with a greater risk of developing T2DM and hypertension. Common confounders adjusted for across the included studies in the reviews were maternal age, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status, smoking status, pre-pregnancy and current BMI, parity, family history of T2DM or cardiovascular disease, ethnicity, and time of delivery. Further research is needed to evaluate the value of embedding these pregnancy complications as part of assessment for future risk of T2DM and chronic hypertension.

Musculoskeletal Health and Work: Development and Internal-External Cross-Validation of a Model to Predict Risk of Work Absence and Presenteeism in People Seeking Primary Healthcare.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate prediction models for the risk of future work absence and level of presenteeism, in adults seeking primary healthcare with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). METHODS: Six studies from the West-Midlands/Northwest regions of England, recruiting adults consulting primary care with MSD were included for model development and internal-external cross-validation (IECV). The primary outcome was any work absence within 6 months of their consultation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month presenteeism and 12-month work absence. Ten candidate predictors were included: age; sex; multisite pain; baseline pain score; pain duration; job type; anxiety/depression; comorbidities; absence in the previous 6 months; and baseline presenteeism. RESULTS: For the 6-month absence model, 2179 participants (215 absences) were available across five studies. Calibration was promising, although varied across studies, with a pooled calibration slope of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.41-1.46) on IECV. On average, the model discriminated well between those with work absence within 6 months, and those without (IECV-pooled C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86). The 6-month presenteeism model, while well calibrated on average, showed some individual-level variation in predictive accuracy, and the 12-month absence model was poorly calibrated due to the small available size for model development. CONCLUSIONS: The developed models predict 6-month work absence and presenteeism with reasonable accuracy, on average, in adults consulting with MSD. The model to predict 12-month absence was poorly calibrated and is not yet ready for use in practice. This information may support shared decision-making and targeting occupational health interventions at those with a higher risk of absence or presenteeism in the 6 months following consultation. Further external validation is needed before the models' use can be recommended or their impact on patients can be fully assessed.

Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. METHODS: The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Between-study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. RESULTS: 3094 citations were identified; 15 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-two prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n = 10 studies), imaging features (n = 8 studies), patient socio-demographics (n = 7 studies), health and lifestyle (n = 6 studies), clinical assessment findings (n = 4 studies) and injection level (n = 4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies.

Predicting relapse or recurrence of depression: systematic review of prognostic models.

BACKGROUND: Relapse and recurrence of depression are common, contributing to the overall burden of depression globally. Accurate prediction of relapse or recurrence while patients are well would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may effectively guide the allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. AIMS: To review prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults with remitted major depressive disorder. METHOD: We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2021. We included development and external validation studies of multivariable prognostic models. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible prognostic model studies (11 unique prognostic models): 8 model development-only studies, 3 model development and external validation studies and 1 external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available and meta-analysis was therefore not necessary. Eleven out of the 12 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias and none examined clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high risk of bias of the included studies, poor predictive performance and limited external validation of the models identified, presently available clinical prediction models for relapse and recurrence of depression are not yet sufficiently developed for deploying in clinical settings. There is a need for improved prognosis research in this clinical area and future studies should conform to best practice methodological and reporting guidelines.

Minimum sample size calculations for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a time-to-event outcome.

Previous articles in Statistics in Medicine describe how to calculate the sample size required for external validation of prediction models with continuous and binary outcomes. The minimum sample size criteria aim to ensure precise estimation of key measures of a model's predictive performance, including measures of calibration, discrimination, and net benefit. Here, we extend the sample size guidance to prediction models with a time-to-event (survival) outcome, to cover external validation in datasets containing censoring. A simulation-based framework is proposed, which calculates the sample size required to target a particular confidence interval width for the calibration slope measuring the agreement between predicted risks (from the model) and observed risks (derived using pseudo-observations to account for censoring) on the log cumulative hazard scale. Precise estimation of calibration curves, discrimination, and net-benefit can also be checked in this framework. The process requires assumptions about the validation population in terms of the (i) distribution of the model's linear predictor and (ii) event and censoring distributions. Existing information can inform this; in particular, the linear predictor distribution can be approximated using the C-index or Royston's D statistic from the model development article, together with the overall event risk. We demonstrate how the approach can be used to calculate the sample size required to validate a prediction model for recurrent venous thromboembolism. Ideally the sample size should ensure precise calibration across the entire range of predicted risks, but must at least ensure adequate precision in regions important for clinical decision-making. Stata and R code are provided.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods. OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

Clinical prediction models to predict the risk of multiple binary outcomes: a comparison of approaches.

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) can predict clinically relevant outcomes or events. Typically, prognostic CPMs are derived to predict the risk of a single future outcome. However, there are many medical applications where two or more outcomes are of interest, meaning this should be more widely reflected in CPMs so they can accurately estimate the joint risk of multiple outcomes simultaneously. A potentially naïve approach to multi-outcome risk prediction is to derive a CPM for each outcome separately, then multiply the predicted risks. This approach is only valid if the outcomes are conditionally independent given the covariates, and it fails to exploit the potential relationships between the outcomes. This paper outlines several approaches that could be used to develop CPMs for multiple binary outcomes. We consider four methods, ranging in complexity and conditional independence assumptions: namely, probabilistic classifier chain, multinomial logistic regression, multivariate logistic regression, and a Bayesian probit model. These are compared with methods that rely on conditional independence: separate univariate CPMs and stacked regression. Employing a simulation study and real-world example, we illustrate that CPMs for joint risk prediction of multiple outcomes should only be derived using methods that model the residual correlation between outcomes. In such a situation, our results suggest that probabilistic classification chains, multinomial logistic regression or the Bayesian probit model are all appropriate choices. We call into question the development of CPMs for each outcome in isolation when multiple correlated or structurally related outcomes are of interest and recommend more multivariate approaches to risk prediction.

Minimum sample size for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a binary outcome.

In prediction model research, external validation is needed to examine an existing model's performance using data independent to that for model development. Current external validation studies often suffer from small sample sizes and consequently imprecise predictive performance estimates. To address this, we propose how to determine the minimum sample size needed for a new external validation study of a prediction model for a binary outcome. Our calculations aim to precisely estimate calibration (Observed/Expected and calibration slope), discrimination (C-statistic), and clinical utility (net benefit). For each measure, we propose closed-form and iterative solutions for calculating the minimum sample size required. These require specifying: (i) target SEs (confidence interval widths) for each estimate of interest, (ii) the anticipated outcome event proportion in the validation population, (iii) the prediction model's anticipated (mis)calibration and variance of linear predictor values in the validation population, and (iv) potential risk thresholds for clinical decision-making. The calculations can also be used to inform whether the sample size of an existing (already collected) dataset is adequate for external validation. We illustrate our proposal for external validation of a prediction model for mechanical heart valve failure with an expected outcome event proportion of 0.018. Calculations suggest at least 9835 participants (177 events) are required to precisely estimate the calibration and discrimination measures, with this number driven by the calibration slope criterion, which we anticipate will often be the case. Also, 6443 participants (116 events) are required to precisely estimate net benefit at a risk threshold of 8%. Software code is provided.

Minimum sample size for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a continuous outcome.

Clinical prediction models provide individualized outcome predictions to inform patient counseling and clinical decision making. External validation is the process of examining a prediction model's performance in data independent to that used for model development. Current external validation studies often suffer from small sample sizes, and subsequently imprecise estimates of a model's predictive performance. To address this, we propose how to determine the minimum sample size needed for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a continuous outcome. Four criteria are proposed, that target precise estimates of (i) R2 (the proportion of variance explained), (ii) calibration-in-the-large (agreement between predicted and observed outcome values on average), (iii) calibration slope (agreement between predicted and observed values across the range of predicted values), and (iv) the variance of observed outcome values. Closed-form sample size solutions are derived for each criterion, which require the user to specify anticipated values of the model's performance (in particular R2 ) and the outcome variance in the external validation dataset. A sensible starting point is to base values on those for the model development study, as obtained from the publication or study authors. The largest sample size required to meet all four criteria is the recommended minimum sample size needed in the external validation dataset. The calculations can also be applied to estimate expected precision when an existing dataset with a fixed sample size is available, to help gauge if it is adequate. We illustrate the proposed methods on a case-study predicting fat-free mass in children.

Individual participant data meta-analysis for external validation, recalibration, and updating of a flexible parametric prognostic model.

Individual participant data (IPD) from multiple sources allows external validation of a prognostic model across multiple populations. Often this reveals poor calibration, potentially causing poor predictive performance in some populations. However, rather than discarding the model outright, it may be possible to modify the model to improve performance using recalibration techniques. We use IPD meta-analysis to identify the simplest method to achieve good model performance. We examine four options for recalibrating an existing time-to-event model across multiple populations: (i) shifting the baseline hazard by a constant, (ii) re-estimating the shape of the baseline hazard, (iii) adjusting the prognostic index as a whole, and (iv) adjusting individual predictor effects. For each strategy, IPD meta-analysis examines (heterogeneity in) model performance across populations. Additionally, the probability of achieving good performance in a new population can be calculated allowing ranking of recalibration methods. In an applied example, IPD meta-analysis reveals that the existing model had poor calibration in some populations, and large heterogeneity across populations. However, re-estimation of the intercept substantially improved the expected calibration in new populations, and reduced between-population heterogeneity. Comparing recalibration strategies showed that re-estimating both the magnitude and shape of the baseline hazard gave the highest predicted probability of good performance in a new population. In conclusion, IPD meta-analysis allows a prognostic model to be externally validated in multiple settings, and enables recalibration strategies to be compared and ranked to decide on the least aggressive recalibration strategy to achieve acceptable external model performance without discarding existing model information.

Prognostic models for predicting relapse or recurrence of major depressive disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Relapse (the re-emergence of depressive symptoms after some level of improvement but preceding recovery) and recurrence (onset of a new depressive episode after recovery) are common in depression, lead to worse outcomes and quality of life for patients and exert a high economic cost on society. Outcomes can be predicted by using multivariable prognostic models, which use information about several predictors to produce an individualised risk estimate. The ability to accurately predict relapse or recurrence while patients are well (in remission) would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may improve overall treatment outcomes for patients by enabling more efficient allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the predictive performance of prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission or recovery in adults with major depressive disorder who meet criteria for remission or recovery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature, screened the reference lists of included studies and performed a forward citation search. There were no restrictions applied to the searches by date, language or publication status . SELECTION CRITERIA: We included development and external validation (testing model performance in data separate from the development data) studies of any multivariable prognostic models (including two or more predictors) to predict relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults (aged 18 years and over) with remitted depression, in any clinical setting. We included all study designs and accepted all definitions of relapse, recurrence and other related outcomes. We did not specify a comparator prognostic model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references; extracted data (using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS)); and assessed risks of bias of included studies (using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST)). We referred any disagreements to a third independent review author. Where we found sufficient (10 or more) external validation studies of an individual model, we planned to perform a meta-analysis of its predictive performance, specifically with respect to its calibration (how well the predicted probabilities match the observed proportions of individuals that experience the outcome) and discrimination (the ability of the model to differentiate between those with and without the outcome). Recommendations could not be qualified using the GRADE system, as guidance is not yet available for prognostic model reviews. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible prognostic model studies (10 unique prognostic models). Seven were model development studies; three were model development and external validation studies; and one was an external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available for any of the models and, meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Ten out of the 11 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias. Common weaknesses included insufficient sample size, inappropriate handling of missing data and lack of information about discrimination and calibration. One paper (Klein 2018) was at low overall risk of bias and presented a prognostic model including the following predictors: number of previous depressive episodes, residual depressive symptoms and severity of the last depressive episode. The external predictive performance of this model was poor (C-statistic 0.59; calibration slope 0.56; confidence intervals not reported). None of the identified studies examined the clinical utility (net benefit) of the developed model. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the 10 prognostic models identified (across 11 studies), only four underwent external validation. Most of the studies (n = 10) were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias, and the one study that was at low risk of bias presented a model with poor predictive performance. There is a need for improved prognostic research in this clinical area, with future studies conforming to current best practice recommendations for prognostic model development/validation and reporting findings in line with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.

External validation of prognostic models predicting pre-eclampsia: individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. METHODS: IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models for continuous and binary outcomes: Comparison of treatment coding options and estimation methods.

A one-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis synthesizes IPD from multiple studies using a general or generalized linear mixed model. This produces summary results (eg, about treatment effect) in a single step, whilst accounting for clustering of participants within studies (via a stratified study intercept, or random study intercepts) and between-study heterogeneity (via random treatment effects). We use simulation to evaluate the performance of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of one-stage IPD meta-analysis models for synthesizing randomized trials with continuous or binary outcomes. Three key findings are identified. First, for ML or REML estimation of stratified intercept or random intercepts models, a t-distribution based approach generally improves coverage of confidence intervals for the summary treatment effect, compared with a z-based approach. Second, when using ML estimation of a one-stage model with a stratified intercept, the treatment variable should be coded using "study-specific centering" (ie, 1/0 minus the study-specific proportion of participants in the treatment group), as this reduces the bias in the between-study variance estimate (compared with 1/0 and other coding options). Third, REML estimation reduces downward bias in between-study variance estimates compared with ML estimation, and does not depend on the treatment variable coding; for binary outcomes, this requires REML estimation of the pseudo-likelihood, although this may not be stable in some situations (eg, when data are sparse). Two applied examples are used to illustrate the findings.

Development and validation of prediction models to estimate risk of primary total hip and knee replacements using data from the UK: two prospective open cohorts using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: The ability to efficiently and accurately predict future risk of primary total hip and knee replacement (THR/TKR) in earlier stages of osteoarthritis (OA) has potentially important applications. We aimed to develop and validate two models to estimate an individual's risk of primary THR and TKR in patients newly presenting to primary care. METHODS: We identified two cohorts of patients aged ≥40 years newly consulting hip pain/OA and knee pain/OA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Candidate predictors were identified by systematic review, novel hypothesis-free 'Record-Wide Association Study' with replication, and panel consensus. Cox proportional hazards models accounting for competing risk of death were applied to derive risk algorithms for THR and TKR. Internal-external cross-validation (IECV) was then applied over geographical regions to validate two models. RESULTS: 45 predictors for THR and 53 for TKR were identified, reviewed and selected by the panel. 301 052 and 416 030 patients newly consulting between 1992 and 2015 were identified in the hip and knee cohorts, respectively (median follow-up 6 years). The resultant model C-statistics is 0.73 (0.72, 0.73) and 0.79 (0.78, 0.79) for THR (with 20 predictors) and TKR model (with 24 predictors), respectively. The IECV C-statistics ranged between 0.70-0.74 (THR model) and 0.76-0.82 (TKR model); the IECV calibration slope ranged between 0.93-1.07 (THR model) and 0.92-1.12 (TKR model). CONCLUSIONS: Two prediction models with good discrimination and calibration that estimate individuals' risk of THR and TKR have been developed and validated in large-scale, nationally representative data, and are readily automated in electronic patient records.

Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: PART II - binary and time-to-event outcomes.

When designing a study to develop a new prediction model with binary or time-to-event outcomes, researchers should ensure their sample size is adequate in terms of the number of participants (n) and outcome events (E) relative to the number of predictor parameters (p) considered for inclusion. We propose that the minimum values of n and E (and subsequently the minimum number of events per predictor parameter, EPP) should be calculated to meet the following three criteria: (i) small optimism in predictor effect estimates as defined by a global shrinkage factor of ≥0.9, (ii) small absolute difference of ≤ 0.05 in the model's apparent and adjusted Nagelkerke's R2 , and (iii) precise estimation of the overall risk in the population. Criteria (i) and (ii) aim to reduce overfitting conditional on a chosen p, and require prespecification of the model's anticipated Cox-Snell R2 , which we show can be obtained from previous studies. The values of n and E that meet all three criteria provides the minimum sample size required for model development. Upon application of our approach, a new diagnostic model for Chagas disease requires an EPP of at least 4.8 and a new prognostic model for recurrent venous thromboembolism requires an EPP of at least 23. This reinforces why rules of thumb (eg, 10 EPP) should be avoided. Researchers might additionally ensure the sample size gives precise estimates of key predictor effects; this is especially important when key categorical predictors have few events in some categories, as this may substantially increase the numbers required.

Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: Part I - Continuous outcomes.

In the medical literature, hundreds of prediction models are being developed to predict health outcomes in individuals. For continuous outcomes, typically a linear regression model is developed to predict an individual's outcome value conditional on values of multiple predictors (covariates). To improve model development and reduce the potential for overfitting, a suitable sample size is required in terms of the number of subjects (n) relative to the number of predictor parameters (p) for potential inclusion. We propose that the minimum value of n should meet the following four key criteria: (i) small optimism in predictor effect estimates as defined by a global shrinkage factor of ≥0.9; (ii) small absolute difference of ≤ 0.05 in the apparent and adjusted R2 ; (iii) precise estimation (a margin of error ≤ 10% of the true value) of the model's residual standard deviation; and similarly, (iv) precise estimation of the mean predicted outcome value (model intercept). The criteria require prespecification of the user's chosen p and the model's anticipated R2 as informed by previous studies. The value of n that meets all four criteria provides the minimum sample size required for model development. In an applied example, a new model to predict lung function in African-American women using 25 predictor parameters requires at least 918 subjects to meet all criteria, corresponding to at least 36.7 subjects per predictor parameter. Even larger sample sizes may be needed to additionally ensure precise estimates of key predictor effects, especially when important categorical predictors have low prevalence in certain categories.

Individual participant data meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: A comparison of approaches for specifying and estimating one-stage models.

One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models should account for within-trial clustering, but it is currently debated how to do this. For continuous outcomes modeled using a linear regression framework, two competing approaches are a stratified intercept or a random intercept. The stratified approach involves estimating a separate intercept term for each trial, whereas the random intercept approach assumes that trial intercepts are drawn from a normal distribution. Here, through an extensive simulation study for continuous outcomes, we evaluate the impact of using the stratified and random intercept approaches on statistical properties of the summary treatment effect estimate. Further aims are to compare (i) competing estimation options for the one-stage models, including maximum likelihood and restricted maximum likelihood, and (ii) competing options for deriving confidence intervals (CI) for the summary treatment effect, including the standard normal-based 95% CI, and more conservative approaches of Kenward-Roger and Satterthwaite, which inflate CIs to account for uncertainty in variance estimates. The findings reveal that, for an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a 1:1 treatment:control allocation ratio and heterogeneity in the treatment effect, (i) bias and coverage of the summary treatment effect estimate are very similar when using stratified or random intercept models with restricted maximum likelihood, and thus either approach could be taken in practice, (ii) CIs are generally best derived using either a Kenward-Roger or Satterthwaite correction, although occasionally overly conservative, and (iii) if maximum likelihood is required, a random intercept performs better than a stratified intercept model. An illustrative example is provided.

Simulation-based power calculations for planning a two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Researchers and funders should consider the statistical power of planned Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analysis projects, as they are often time-consuming and costly. We propose simulation-based power calculations utilising a two-stage framework, and illustrate the approach for a planned IPD meta-analysis of randomised trials with continuous outcomes where the aim is to identify treatment-covariate interactions. METHODS: The simulation approach has four steps: (i) specify an underlying (data generating) statistical model for trials in the IPD meta-analysis; (ii) use readily available information (e.g. from publications) and prior knowledge (e.g. number of studies promising IPD) to specify model parameter values (e.g. control group mean, intervention effect, treatment-covariate interaction); (iii) simulate an IPD meta-analysis dataset of a particular size from the model, and apply a two-stage IPD meta-analysis to obtain the summary estimate of interest (e.g. interaction effect) and its associated p-value; (iv) repeat the previous step (e.g. thousands of times), then estimate the power to detect a genuine effect by the proportion of summary estimates with a significant p-value. RESULTS: In a planned IPD meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions to reduce weight gain in pregnancy, 14 trials (1183 patients) promised their IPD to examine a treatment-BMI interaction (i.e. whether baseline BMI modifies intervention effect on weight gain). Using our simulation-based approach, a two-stage IPD meta-analysis has < 60% power to detect a reduction of 1 kg weight gain for a 10-unit increase in BMI. Additional IPD from ten other published trials (containing 1761 patients) would improve power to over 80%, but only if a fixed-effect meta-analysis was appropriate. Pre-specified adjustment for prognostic factors would increase power further. Incorrect dichotomisation of BMI would reduce power by over 20%, similar to immediately throwing away IPD from ten trials. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based power calculations could inform the planning and funding of IPD projects, and should be used routinely.

Patients with multiple myeloma have excellent long-term outcomes after recovery from dialysis-dependent acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who receive dialysis treatment for acute kidney injury (AKI) due to myeloma cast nephropathy and subsequently recover renal function. METHODS: Patients presenting with dialysis-dependent AKI secondary to myeloma cast nephropathy and subsequently recovering independent renal function between January 2005 and December 2012 were included in this study. Both renal and haematological parameters were collected at multiple time points as part of routine clinic practice. Factors associated with renal function and overall survival (OS) were determined. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. Mean age was 62.1 years; 75% were male and 75% were of White ethnicity. The median OS was 64.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 34.8-93.3). Twenty-three (95.8%) patients remained dialysis-independent until death or end of follow-up; one patient required further haemodialysis treatment during the follow-up period. The independent determinant of worse OS was a known history of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at presentation. Shorter length of time on haemodialysis and higher percentage reduction in clonal serum FLC at day 21 from baseline predicted better excretory renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: In this series, the large majority of patients with MM and dialysis-dependent AKI secondary to myeloma cast nephropathy who recovered independent renal function had no requirement for further dialysis. Survival following recovery of renal function is good, and early variables are independently associated with survival and future renal function.