Prognostic Factors and Models to Predict Mortality Outcomes in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Predicting adverse outcomes in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a complex task owing to the heterogeneity in patient and disease characteristics. This systematic review aimed to identify prognostic factors and prognostic models to predict mortality outcomes in patients with PAD Fontaine stage I - III or Rutherford category 0 - 4. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify studies examining individual prognostic factors or studies aiming to develop or validate a prognostic model for mortality outcomes in patients with PAD. REVIEW METHODS: Information on study design, patient population, prognostic factors, and prognostic model characteristics was extracted, and risk of bias was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty nine studies investigated prognostic factors for mortality outcomes in PAD. Over 80 single prognostic factors were identified, with age as a predictor of mortality in most of the studies. Other common factors included sex, diabetes, and smoking status. Six studies had low risk of bias in all domains, and the remainder had an unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. Eight studies developed or validated a prognostic model. All models included age in their primary model, but not sex. All studies had similar discrimination levels of > 70%. Five of the studies on prognostic models had an overall high risk of bias, whereas two studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that a large number of prognostic studies have been published, with heterogeneity in patient population, outcomes, and risk of bias. Factors such as sex, age, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking are significant in predicting mortality risk among patients with PAD Fontaine stage I - III or Rutherford category 0 - 4.

Diagnostic yield and safety of navigation bronchoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Navigation bronchoscopy has seen rapid development in the past decade in terms of new navigation techniques and multi-modality approaches utilizing different techniques and tools. This systematic review analyses the diagnostic yield and safety of navigation bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary nodules suspected of lung cancer. METHODS: An extensive search was performed in Embase, Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL in May 2022. Eligible studies used cone-beam CT-guided navigation (CBCT), electromagnetic navigation (EMN), robotic navigation (RB) or virtual bronchoscopy (VB) as the primary navigation technique. Primary outcomes were diagnostic yield and adverse events. Quality of studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with subgroup analyses for different navigation techniques, newer versus older techniques, nodule size, publication year, and strictness of diagnostic yield definition. Explorative analyses of subgroups reported by studies was performed for nodule size and bronchus sign. RESULTS: A total of 95 studies (n = 10,381 patients; n = 10,682 nodules) were included. The majority (n = 63; 66.3%) had high risk of bias or applicability concerns in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. Summary diagnostic yield was 70.9% (95%-CI 68.4%-73.2%). Overall pneumothorax rate was 2.5%. Newer navigation techniques using advanced imaging and/or robotics(CBCT, RB, tomosynthesis guided EMN; n = 24 studies) had a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield compared to longer established techniques (EMN, VB; n = 82 studies): 77.5% (95%-CI 74.7%-80.1%) vs 68.8% (95%-CI 65.9%-71.6%) (p < 0.001).Explorative subgroup analyses showed that larger nodule size and bronchus sign presence were associated with a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield. Other subgroup analyses showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Navigation bronchoscopy is a safe procedure, with the potential for high diagnostic yield, in particular using newer techniques such as RB, CBCT and tomosynthesis-guided EMN. Studies showed a large amount of heterogeneity, making comparisons difficult. Standardized definitions for outcomes with relevant clinical context will improve future comparability.

Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for individualized risk prediction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 1st January, 2019, and 5th September, 2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices. RESULTS: We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion, or conclusion. CONCLUSION: The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.

Risk of bias of prognostic models developed using machine learning: a systematic review in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are used widely in the oncology domain to guide medical decision-making. Little is known about the risk of bias of prognostic models developed using machine learning and the barriers to their clinical uptake in the oncology domain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for oncology-related studies developing a prognostic model using machine learning methods published between 01/01/2019 and 05/09/2019. The primary outcome was risk of bias, judged using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We described risk of bias overall and for each domain, by development and validation analyses separately. RESULTS: We included 62 publications (48 development-only; 14 development with validation). 152 models were developed across all publications and 37 models were validated. 84% (95% CI: 77 to 89) of developed models and 51% (95% CI: 35 to 67) of validated models were at overall high risk of bias. Bias introduced in the analysis was the largest contributor to the overall risk of bias judgement for model development and validation. 123 (81%, 95% CI: 73.8 to 86.4) developed models and 19 (51%, 95% CI: 35.1 to 67.3) validated models were at high risk of bias due to their analysis, mostly due to shortcomings in the analysis including insufficient sample size and split-sample internal validation. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of machine learning based prognostic models in the oncology domain is poor and most models have a high risk of bias, contraindicating their use in clinical practice. Adherence to better standards is urgently needed, with a focus on sample size estimation and analysis methods, to improve the quality of these models.

Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Describe and evaluate the methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning methods in oncology. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE and Embase between 01/01/2019 and 05/09/2019, for studies developing a prognostic prediction model using machine learning methods in oncology. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) to assess the methodological conduct of included publications. Results were summarised by modelling type: regression-, non-regression-based and ensemble machine learning models. RESULTS: Sixty-two publications met inclusion criteria developing 152 models across all publications. Forty-two models were regression-based, 71 were non-regression-based and 39 were ensemble models. A median of 647 individuals (IQR: 203 to 4059) and 195 events (IQR: 38 to 1269) were used for model development, and 553 individuals (IQR: 69 to 3069) and 50 events (IQR: 17.5 to 326.5) for model validation. A higher number of events per predictor was used for developing regression-based models (median: 8, IQR: 7.1 to 23.5), compared to alternative machine learning (median: 3.4, IQR: 1.1 to 19.1) and ensemble models (median: 1.7, IQR: 1.1 to 6). Sample size was rarely justified (n = 5/62; 8%). Some or all continuous predictors were categorised before modelling in 24 studies (39%). 46% (n = 24/62) of models reporting predictor selection before modelling used univariable analyses, and common method across all modelling types. Ten out of 24 models for time-to-event outcomes accounted for censoring (42%). A split sample approach was the most popular method for internal validation (n = 25/62, 40%). Calibration was reported in 11 studies. Less than half of models were reported or made available. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological conduct of machine learning based clinical prediction models is poor. Guidance is urgently needed, with increased awareness and education of minimum prediction modelling standards. Particular focus is needed on sample size estimation, development and validation analysis methods, and ensuring the model is available for independent validation, to improve quality of machine learning based clinical prediction models.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Thyroid Surgery - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Conventional thyroidectomy has been standard of care for surgical thyroid nodules. For cosmetic purposes different minimally invasive and remote-access surgical approaches have been developed. At present, the most used robotic and endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches are minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), bilateral axillo-breast approach endoscopic thyroidectomy (BABA-ET), bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy (BABA-RT), transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOETVA), retro-auricular endoscopic thyroidectomy (RA-ET), retro-auricular robotic thyroidectomy (RA-RT), gasless transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GTET) and robot assisted transaxillary surgery (RATS). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether minimally invasive techniques are not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Web of Science to identify original articles investigating operating time, length of hospital stay and complication rates regarding recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia, of the different minimally invasive techniques. Results: Out of 569 identified manuscripts, 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective in nature. The results of the systematic review varied. Thirty-one articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard of care, the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in length of hospital stay, except a longer stay after BABA-ET. No significant difference in incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia was seen. As expected, operating time was significantly longer for most minimally invasive techniques. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the eight most commonly used minimally invasive thyroid surgeries individually with standard of care. It can be concluded that minimally invasive techniques do not lead to more complications or longer hospital stay and are, therefore, not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE:  To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. DESIGN:  Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:  Medline and Embase until June 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION:  Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population. RESULTS:  9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:  There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.