Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Examining Bias and Reporting in Oral Health Prediction Modeling Studies.
Du, M; Haag, D; Song, Y; Lynch, J; Mittinty, M.
Afiliação
  • Du M; School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Haag D; Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Song Y; School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Lynch J; Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Mittinty M; Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
J Dent Res ; 99(4): 374-387, 2020 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32028825
ABSTRACT
Recent efforts to improve the reliability and efficiency of scientific research have caught the attention of researchers conducting prediction modeling studies (PMSs). Use of prediction models in oral health has become more common over the past decades for predicting the risk of diseases and treatment outcomes. Risk of bias and insufficient reporting present challenges to the reproducibility and implementation of these models. A recent tool for bias assessment and a reporting guideline-PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis)-have been proposed to guide researchers in the development and reporting of PMSs, but their application has been limited. Following the standards proposed in these tools and a systematic review approach, a literature search was carried out in PubMed to identify oral health PMSs published in dental, epidemiologic, and biostatistical journals. Risk of bias and transparency of reporting were assessed with PROBAST and TRIPOD. Among 2,881 papers identified, 34 studies containing 58 models were included. The most investigated outcomes were periodontal diseases (42%) and oral cancers (30%). Seventy-five percent of the studies were susceptible to at least 4 of 20 sources of bias, including measurement error in predictors (n = 12) and/or outcome (n = 7), omitting samples with missing data (n = 10), selecting variables based on univariate analyses (n = 9), overfitting (n = 13), and lack of model performance assessment (n = 24). Based on TRIPOD, at least 5 of 31 items were inadequately reported in 95% of the studies. These items included sampling approaches (n = 15), participant eligibility criteria (n = 6), and model-building procedures (n = 16). There was a general lack of transparent reporting and identification of bias across the studies. Application of the recommendations proposed in PROBAST and TRIPOD can benefit future research and improve the reproducibility and applicability of prediction models in oral health.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Saúde Bucal Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Saúde Bucal Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article