SynthesisPLoS medicine2012
Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 286 papers, 50 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
286 citing papers in PubMed, 50 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality and performance of machine learning versus logistic regression for predicting IVIG resistance in Kawasaki disease: a PROBAST+AI systematic comparison.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Risk prediction model for peripherally inserted central catheters related bloodstream infection: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating methodological quality of prognostic prediction models on patient-reported outcome measurements after total hip and total knee arthroplasty : a systematic review.Bone & joint open · 2026Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for malnutrition in patients with cancer: a systematic review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction model developed on the basis of meta-analysis in the field of medicine: a systematic survey and methodological summaries.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Clinical prediction models for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: an external validation based on a systematic review and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Pooled it
- Machine learning models including patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a systematic literature review and analysis of their reporting quality.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical prediction models for the management of blunt chest trauma in the emergency department: a systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic prediction models to identify patients at risk for healthcare-facility-onsetInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Multivariable Prediction Models for Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic models for surgical-site infection in gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review.The British journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Poor handling of continuous predictors in clinical prediction models using logistic regression: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Predicting neurological outcome in adult patients with cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Performance of the J-CTO score versus other risk scores for predicting procedural difficulty in coronary chronic total occlusion interventions.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
226 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures. METHODS AND
findingsWe used a full hand search to identify all prediction studies published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals. We developed a comprehensive item list to systematically score conduct and reporting of the studies, based on recent recommendations for prediction research. Two reviewers independently scored the studies. We retrieved 71 papers for full text review: 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three addressed an external validation of a previously developed model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design was unclear in 15% of studies, and a prospective cohort was used in most studies (60%). Descriptions of the participants and definitions of predictor and outcome were generally good. Despite many recommendations against doing so, continuous predictors were often dichotomized (32% of studies). The number of events per predictor as a measure of statistical power could not be determined in 67% of the studies; of the remainder, 53% had fewer than the commonly recommended value of ten events per predictor. Methods for a priori selection of candidate predictors were described in most studies (68%). A substantial number of studies relied on a p-value cut-off of p<0.05 to select predictors in the multivariable analyses (29%). Predictive model performance measures, i.e., calibration and discrimination, were reported in 12% and 27% of studies, respectively.
conclusionsThe majority of prediction studies in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.