Scholarlink

Background <p>To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis.</p> Methods <p>Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were used to assess reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively.</p> Results <p>A total of 34 DPM studies were identified since the first publication in 2005, the main modeling methods for DPMs included the landmark model and the joint model. Regarding the reporting quality, the median overall TRIPOD adherence score was 75%. The TRIPOD items were poorly reported, especially the title (23.53%), model specification, including presentation (55.88%) and interpretation (50%) of the DPM usage, and implications for clinical use and future research (29.41%). Concerning methodological quality, most studies were of low quality (<i>n</i> = 30) or unclear (<i>n</i> = 3), mainly due to statistical analysis issues.</p> Conclusions <p>The Landmark model and joint model show potential in DPM. The suboptimal reporting and methodological qualities of current DPM studies should be improved to facilitate clinical application.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月1日

查看全文
  • Peijing Yan,
  • Zhengxing Xu,
  • Xu Hui,
  • Xiajing Chu,
  • Yizhuo Chen,
  • Chao Yang,
  • Shixi Xu,
  • Huijie Cui,
  • Li Zhang,
  • Wenqiang Zhang,
  • Liqun Wang,
  • Yanqiu Zou,
  • Yan Ren,
  • Jiaqiang Liao,
  • Qin Zhang,
  • Kehu Yang,
  • Ling Zhang,
  • Yunjie Liu,
  • Jiayuan Li,
  • Chunxia Yang,
  • Yuqin Yao,
  • Zhenmi Liu,
  • Xia Jiang,
  • Ben Zhang

摘要

Background

To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis.

Methods

Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were used to assess reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively.

Results

A total of 34 DPM studies were identified since the first publication in 2005, the main modeling methods for DPMs included the landmark model and the joint model. Regarding the reporting quality, the median overall TRIPOD adherence score was 75%. The TRIPOD items were poorly reported, especially the title (23.53%), model specification, including presentation (55.88%) and interpretation (50%) of the DPM usage, and implications for clinical use and future research (29.41%). Concerning methodological quality, most studies were of low quality (n = 30) or unclear (n = 3), mainly due to statistical analysis issues.

Conclusions

The Landmark model and joint model show potential in DPM. The suboptimal reporting and methodological qualities of current DPM studies should be improved to facilitate clinical application.