Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017-2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the online 'instructions to authors' of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular. RESULTS: In 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD. CONCLUSION: About three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

One Heartbeat Away from a Prediction Model for Cardiovascular Diseases in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Prediction models, combining clinical and laboratory characteristics, are commonly used to estimate an individual's CVD risk. However, these models are not specifically developed for patients with CKD and may therefore be less accurate. In this review, we aim to give an overview of CVD prognostic studies available, and their methodological quality, specifically for patients with CKD. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for papers reporting CVD prognostic studies in patients with CKD published between 2012 and 2021. Characteristics regarding patients, study design, outcome measurement, and prediction models were compared between included studies. The risk of bias of studies reporting on prognostic factors or the development/validation of a prediction model was assessed with, respectively, the QUIPS and PROBAST tool. RESULTS: In total, 134 studies were included, of which 123 studies tested the incremental value of one or more predictors to existing models or common risk factors, while only 11 studies reported on the development or validation of a prediction model. Substantial heterogeneity in cohort and study characteristics, such as sample size, event rate, and definition of outcome measurements, was observed across studies. The most common predictors were age (87%), sex (75%), diabetes (70%), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (69%). Most of the studies on prognostic factors have methodological shortcomings, mostly due to a lack of reporting on clinical and methodological information. Of the 11 studies on prediction models, six developed and internally validated a model and four externally validated existing or developed models. Only one study on prognostic models showed a low risk of bias and high applicability. CONCLUSION: A large quantity of prognostic studies has been published, yet their usefulness remains unclear due to incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation of prognostic models. Our review can be used to select the most appropriate prognostic model depending on the patient population, outcome, and risk of bias. Future collaborative efforts should aim at improving existing models by externally validating them, evaluating the addition of new predictors, and assessment of the clinical impact. REGISTRATION: We have registered the protocol of our systematic review on PROSPERO (CRD42021228043).

Effectiveness of contact tracing apps for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on effectiveness of contact tracing apps (CTAs) for SARS-CoV-2 on epidemiological and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE (OVID), MEDLINE (PubMed), BioRxiv and MedRxiv were searched up to 28 October 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies, both empirical and model-based, assessing effect of CTAs for SARS-CoV-2 on reproduction number (R), total number of infections, hospitalisation rate, mortality rate, and other epidemiologically and clinically relevant outcomes, were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Empirical and model-based studies were critically appraised using separate checklists. Data on type of study (ie, empirical or model-based), sample size, (simulated) time horizon, study population, CTA type (and associated interventions), comparator and outcomes assessed, were extracted. The most important findings were extracted and narratively summarised. Specifically for model-based studies, characteristics and values of important model parameters were collected. RESULTS: 2140 studies were identified, of which 17 studies (2 empirical, 15 model-based studies) were eligible and included in this review. Both empirical studies were observational (non-randomised) studies and at high risk of bias, most importantly due to risk of confounding. Risk of bias of model-based studies was considered low for 12 out of 15 studies. Most studies demonstrated beneficial effects of CTAs on R, total number of infections and mortality rate. No studies assessed effect on hospitalisation. Effect size was dependent on model parameters values used, but in general, a beneficial effect was observed at CTA adoption rates of 20% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: CTAs have the potential to be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 related epidemiological and clinical outcomes, though effect size depends on other model parameters (eg, proportion of asymptomatic individuals, or testing delays), and interventions after CTA notification. Methodologically sound comparative empirical studies on effectiveness of CTAs are required to confirm findings from model-based studies.

Protocol for a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies using machine learning techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Studies addressing the development and/or validation of diagnostic and prognostic prediction models are abundant in most clinical domains. Systematic reviews have shown that the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies is suboptimal. Due to the increasing availability of larger, routinely collected and complex medical data, and the rising application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) techniques, the number of prediction model studies is expected to increase even further. Prediction models developed using AI or ML techniques are often labelled as a 'black box' and little is known about their methodological and reporting quality. Therefore, this comprehensive systematic review aims to evaluate the reporting quality, the methodological conduct, and the risk of bias of prediction model studies that applied ML techniques for model development and/or validation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing and/or validating prediction models using any ML methodology and across all medical fields. Studies will be included if they were published between January 2018 and December 2019, predict patient-related outcomes, use any study design or data source, and available in English. Screening of search results and data extraction from included articles will be performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes of this systematic review are: (1) the adherence of ML-based prediction model studies to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), and (2) the risk of bias in such studies as assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Findings will be stratified by study type, medical field and prevalent ML methods, and will inform necessary extensions or updates of TRIPOD and PROBAST to better address prediction model studies that used AI or ML techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study because only available published data will be analysed. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.

Transparent Reporting of Multivariable Prediction Models in Journal and Conference Abstracts: TRIPOD for Abstracts.

Clear and informative reporting in titles and abstracts is essential to help readers and reviewers identify potentially relevant studies and decide whether to read the full text. Although the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) statement provides general recommendations for reporting titles and abstracts, more detailed guidance seems to be desirable. The authors present TRIPOD for Abstracts, a checklist and corresponding guidance for reporting prediction model studies in abstracts. A list of 32 potentially relevant items was the starting point for a modified Delphi procedure involving 110 experts, of whom 71 (65%) participated in the web-based survey. After 2 Delphi rounds, the experts agreed on 21 items as being essential to report in abstracts of prediction model studies. This number was reduced by merging some of the items. In a third round, participants provided feedback on a draft version of TRIPOD for Abstracts. The final checklist contains 12 items and applies to journal and conference abstracts that describe the development or external validation of a diagnostic or prognostic prediction model, or the added value of predictors to an existing model, regardless of the clinical domain or statistical approach used.

The increasing need for systematic reviews of prognosis studies: strategies to facilitate review production and improve quality of primary research.

Personalized, precision, and risk-based medicine are becoming increasingly important in medicine. These involve the use of information about the prognosis of a patient, to make individualized treatment decisions. This has led to an accumulating amount of literature available on prognosis studies. To summarize and evaluate this information overload, high-quality systematic reviews are essential, additionally helping us to facilitate interpretation and usability of prognosis study findings and to identify gaps in literature. Four types of prognosis studies can be identified: overall prognosis, prognostic factors, prognostic models, and predictors of treatment effect. Methodologists have focussed on developing methods and tools for every step of a systematic review for reviews of all four types of prognosis studies, from formulating the review question and writing a protocol to searching for studies, assessing risk of bias, meta-analysing results, and interpretation of results. The growing attention for prognosis research has led to the introduction of the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group (PMG). Since 2016, reviews of prognosis studies are formally implemented within Cochrane. With these recent methodological developments and tools, and the implementation within Cochrane, it becomes increasingly feasible to perform high-quality reviews of prognosis studies that will have an impact on clinical practice.

Uniformity in measuring adherence to reporting guidelines: the example of TRIPOD for assessing completeness of reporting of prediction model studies.

To promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, a reporting guideline for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, and thereby facilitate comparability of future studies assessing its impact, we transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules. TRIPOD specific challenges encountered were the existence of different types of prediction model studies and possible combinations of these within publications. More general issues included dealing with multiple reporting elements, reference to information in another publication, and non-applicability of items. We recommend our adherence assessment form to be used by anyone (eg, researchers, reviewers, editors) evaluating adherence to TRIPOD, to make these assessments comparable. In general, when developing a form to assess adherence to a reporting guideline, we recommend formulating specific adherence elements (if needed multiple per reporting guideline item) using unambiguous wording and the consideration of issues of applicability in advance.

Empirical evidence of the impact of study characteristics on the performance of prediction models: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To empirically assess the relation between study characteristics and prognostic model performance in external validation studies of multivariable prognostic models. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: On 16 October 2018, we searched electronic databases for systematic reviews of prognostic models. Reviews from non-overlapping clinical fields were selected if they reported common performance measures (either the concordance (c)-statistic or the ratio of observed over expected number of events (OE ratio)) from 10 or more validations of the same prognostic model. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSES: Study design features, population characteristics, methods of predictor and outcome assessment, and the aforementioned performance measures were extracted from the included external validation studies. Random effects meta-regression was used to quantify the association between the study characteristics and model performance. RESULTS: We included 10 systematic reviews, describing a total of 224 external validations, of which 221 reported c-statistics and 124 OE ratios. Associations between study characteristics and model performance were heterogeneous across systematic reviews. C-statistics were most associated with variation in population characteristics, outcome definitions and measurement and predictor substitution. For example, validations with eligibility criteria comparable to the development study were associated with higher c-statistics compared with narrower criteria (difference in logit c-statistic 0.21(95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), similar to an increase from 0.70 to 0.74). Using a case-control design was associated with higher OE ratios, compared with using data from a cohort (difference in log OE ratio 0.97(95% CI 0.38 to 1.55), similar to an increase in OE ratio from 1.00 to 2.63). CONCLUSIONS: Variation in performance of prognostic models across studies is mainly associated with variation in case-mix, study designs, outcome definitions and measurement methods and predictor substitution. Researchers developing and validating prognostic models should realise the potential influence of these study characteristics on the predictive performance of prognostic models.

Cardiovascular risk prediction models for women in the general population: A systematic review.

AIM: To provide a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models for women and models that include female-specific predictors. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of CVD risk prediction models for women in the general population by updating a previous review. We searched Medline and Embase up to July 2017 and included studies in which; (a) a new model was developed, (b) an existing model was validated, or (c) a predictor was added to an existing model. RESULTS: A total of 285 prediction models for women have been developed, of these 160 (56%) were female-specific models, in which a separate model was developed solely in women and 125 (44%) were sex-predictor models. Out of the 160 female-specific models, 2 (1.3%) included one or more female-specific predictors (mostly reproductive risk factors). A total of 591 validations of sex-predictor or female-specific models were identified in 206 papers. Of these, 333 (56%) validations concerned nine models (five versions of Framingham, SCORE, Pooled Cohort Equations and QRISK). The median and pooled C statistics were comparable for sex-predictor and female-specific models. In 260 articles the added value of new predictors to an existing model was described, however in only 3 of these female-specific predictors (reproductive risk factors) were added. CONCLUSIONS: There is an abundance of models for women in the general population. Female-specific and sex-predictor models have similar predictors and performance. Female-specific predictors are rarely included. Further research is needed to assess the added value of female-specific predictors to CVD models for women and provide physicians with a well-performing prediction model for women.

Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement.

BACKGROUND: As complete reporting is essential to judge the validity and applicability of multivariable prediction models, a guideline for the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was introduced. We assessed the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies published just before the introduction of the TRIPOD statement, to refine and tailor its implementation strategy. METHODS: Within each of 37 clinical domains, 10 journals with the highest journal impact factor were selected. A PubMed search was performed to identify prediction model studies published before the launch of TRIPOD in these journals (May 2014). Eligible publications reported on the development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) or on the incremental value of adding a predictor to an existing model. RESULTS: We included 146 publications (84% prognostic), from which we assessed 170 models: 73 (43%) on model development, 43 (25%) on external validation, 33 (19%) on incremental value, and 21 (12%) on combined development and external validation of the same model. Overall, publications adhered to a median of 44% (25th-75th percentile 35-52%) of TRIPOD items, with 44% (35-53%) for prognostic and 41% (34-48%) for diagnostic models. TRIPOD items that were completely reported for less than 25% of the models concerned abstract (2%), title (5%), blinding of predictor assessment (6%), comparison of development and validation data (11%), model updating (14%), model performance (14%), model specification (17%), characteristics of participants (21%), model performance measures (methods) (21%), and model-building procedures (24%). Most often reported were TRIPOD items regarding overall interpretation (96%), source of data (95%), and risk groups (90%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the items considered essential for transparent reporting were not fully addressed in publications of multivariable prediction model studies. Essential information for using a model in individual risk prediction, i.e. model specifications and model performance, was incomplete for more than 80% of the models. Items that require improved reporting are title, abstract, and model-building procedures, as they are crucial for identification and external validation of prediction models.

Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies.

BACKGROUND: Ignoring treatments in prognostic model development or validation can affect the accuracy and transportability of models. We aim to quantify the extent to which the effects of treatment have been addressed in existing prognostic model research and provide recommendations for the handling and reporting of treatment use in future studies. METHODS: We first describe how and when the use of treatments by individuals in a prognostic study can influence the development or validation of a prognostic model. We subsequently conducted a systematic review of the handling and reporting of treatment use in prognostic model studies in cardiovascular medicine. Data on treatment use (e.g. medications, surgeries, lifestyle interventions), the timing of their use, and the handling of such treatment use in the analyses were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Three hundred two articles were included in the review. Treatment use was not mentioned in 91 (30%) articles. One hundred forty-six (48%) reported specific information about treatment use in their studies; 78 (26%) provided information about multiple treatments. Three articles (1%) reported changes in medication use ("treatment drop-in") during follow-up. Seventy-nine articles (26%) excluded treated individuals from their analysis, 80 articles (26%) modelled treatment as an outcome, and of the 155 articles that developed a model, 86 (55%) modelled treatment use, almost exclusively at baseline, as a predictor. CONCLUSIONS: The use of treatments has been partly considered by the majority of CVD prognostic model studies. Detailed accounts including, for example, information on treatment drop-in were rare. Where relevant, the use of treatments should be considered in the analysis of prognostic model studies, particularly when a prognostic model is designed to guide the use of certain treatments and these treatments have been used by the study participants. Future prognostic model studies should clearly report the use of treatments by study participants and consider the potential impact of treatment use on the study findings.

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.