SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model, regardless of the modelling technique. STUDY DESIGN: We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) pre-meeting literature review to generate items to be included; (2) a series of structured meetings to provide comments, discussed and exchanged viewpoints on items to be included with a panel of experienced researchers; and (3) post-meeting review on final list of items and examples to be included. Through this iterative consensus process, a framework was derived after all panel's researchers agreed. RESULTS: This consensus process involved a panel of eight researchers and resulted in SPIN-PM which consists of two categories of spin (misleading interpretation and misleading transportability), and within these categories, two forms of spin (spin practices and facilitators of spin). We provide criteria and examples. CONCLUSION: We proposed this guidance aiming to facilitate not only the accurate reporting but also an accurate interpretation and extrapolation of clinical prediction models which will likely improve the reporting quality of subsequent research, as well as reduce research waste.

Reporting of prognostic clinical prediction models based on machine learning methods in oncology needs to be improved.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the completeness of reporting of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning methods in the field of oncology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE and Embase databases between 01/01/2019 and 05/09/2019, for non-imaging studies developing a prognostic clinical prediction model using machine learning methods (as defined by primary study authors) in oncology. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement to assess the reporting quality of included publications. We described overall reporting adherence of included publications and by each section of TRIPOD. RESULTS: Sixty-two publications met the inclusion criteria. 48 were development studies and 14 were development with validation studies. 152 models were developed across all publications. Median adherence to TRIPOD reporting items was 41% [range: 10%-67%] and at least 50% adherence was found in 19% (n=12/62) of publications. Adherence was lower in development only studies (median: 38% [range: 10%-67%]); and higher in development with validation studies (median: 49% [range: 33%-59%]). CONCLUSION: Reporting of clinical prediction models using machine learning in oncology is poor and needs urgent improvement, so readers and stakeholders can appraise the study methods, understand study findings, and reduce research waste.