Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are often not evaluated properly in specific settings or updated, for instance, with information from new markers. These key steps are needed such that models are fit for purpose and remain relevant in the long-term. We aimed to present an overview of methodological guidance for the evaluation (i.e., validation and impact assessment) and updating of clinical prediction models. METHODS: We systematically searched nine databases from January 2000 to January 2022 for articles in English with methodological recommendations for the post-derivation stages of interest. Qualitative analysis was used to summarize the 70 selected guidance papers. RESULTS: Key aspects for validation are the assessment of statistical performance using measures for discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) and calibration (e.g., calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope). For assessing impact or usefulness in clinical decision-making, recent papers advise using decision-analytic measures (e.g., the Net Benefit) over simplistic classification measures that ignore clinical consequences (e.g., accuracy, overall Net Reclassification Index). Commonly recommended methods for model updating are recalibration (i.e., adjustment of intercept or baseline hazard and/or slope), revision (i.e., re-estimation of individual predictor effects), and extension (i.e., addition of new markers). Additional methodological guidance is needed for newer types of updating (e.g., meta-model and dynamic updating) and machine learning-based models. CONCLUSION: Substantial guidance was found for model evaluation and more conventional updating of regression-based models. An important development in model evaluation is the introduction of a decision-analytic framework for assessing clinical usefulness. Consensus is emerging on methods for model updating.

Intra-Arterial Therapies for Liver Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Performing a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the evidence of intra-arterial therapies in liver metastatic breast cancer (LMBC) patients. METHODS: A systemic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS for studies regarding intra-arterial therapies in LMBC patients. Full text studies of LMBC patients (n ≥ 10) published between January 2010 and December 2020 were included when at least one outcome among response rate, adverse events or survival was available. Response rates were pooled using generalized linear mixed models. A weighted estimate of the population median overall survival (OS) was obtained under the assumption of exponentially distributed survival times. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies (1266 patients) were included. Eleven articles reported on transarterial radioembolization (TARE), ten on transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and four on chemo-infusion. One retrospective study compared TARE and TACE. Pooled response rates were 49% for TARE (95%CI 32-67%), 34% for TACE (95%CI 22-50%) and 19% for chemo-infusion (95%CI 14-25%). Pooled median survival was 9.2 months (range 6.1-35.4 months) for TARE, 17.8 months (range 4.6-47.0) for TACE and 7.9 months (range 7.0-14.2) for chemo-infusion. No comparison for OS was possible due to missing survival rates at specific time points (1 and 2 year OS) and the large heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Although results have to be interpreted with caution due to the large heterogeneity, the superior response rate of TARE and TACE compared to chemo-infusion suggests first choice of TARE or TACE in chemorefractory LMBC patients. Chemo-infusion could be considered in LMBC patients not suitable for TARE or TACE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3a.

Assessment of the deep resection margin during oral cancer surgery: A systematic review.

The main challenge for radical resection in oral cancer surgery is to obtain adequate resection margins. Especially the deep margin, which can only be estimated based on palpation during surgery, is often reported inadequate. To increase the percentage of radical resections, there is a need for a quick, easy, minimal invasive method, which assesses the deep resection margin without interrupting or prolonging surgery. This systematic review provides an overview of technologies that are currently being studied with the aim of fulfilling this demand. A literature search was conducted through the databases Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. A total of 62 studies were included. The results were categorized according to the type of technique: 'Frozen Section Analysis', 'Fluorescence', 'Optical Imaging', 'Conventional imaging techniques', and 'Cytological assessment'. This systematic review gives for each technique an overview of the reported performance (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, or a different outcome measure), acquisition time, and sampling depth. At the moment, the most prevailing technique remains frozen section analysis. In the search for other assessment methods to evaluate the deep resection margin, some technologies are very promising for future use when effectiveness has been shown in larger trials, e.g., fluorescence (real-time, sampling depth up to 6 mm) or optical techniques such as hyperspectral imaging (real-time, sampling depth few mm) for microscopic margin assessment and ultrasound (less than 10 min, sampling depth several cm) for assessment on a macroscopic scale.

Measurement properties of the most commonly used Foot- and Ankle-Specific Questionnaires: the FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review.

PURPOSE: In the foot and ankle literature, a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is used, however, consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking. Selection of a PROM is among other reasons, often based on measurement properties without considering the methodological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties. The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature, and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS. METHODS: Six PubMed indexed journals focussing on foot and ankle research were screened to identify most commonly used foot and ankle-specific PROMs over a 2 year period (2015-2016). Subsequently, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Scopus to identify relevant studies on their measurement properties. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, criteria for good measurement properties were applied, and a level of evidence was determined for the measurement properties of each domain of the questionnaires. RESULTS: The three most frequently reported PROMs were the Foot Function Index (FFI), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Activity Measure (FAAM). Among 2046 unique citations, 50 studies were included evaluating these PROMs. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the FFI was mainly lacking due to poor methodological quality. More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM, but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence retrieved in this review showed that the FAOS and the FAAM are promising outcome measures for evaluation of patients with foot and ankle conditions, but their shortcomings should be taken into account when interpreting results in clinical setting or trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.