Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25701155›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2015

Comparison of two ordinal prediction models: A cancer staging system example.

Michael W Kattan, Thomas A Gerds

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael W KattanDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA kattanm@ccf.org.
Thomas A GerdsDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChoosing to replace or maintain an existing cancer staging system is a difficult task. The system plays a critical role in patient counselling and treatment decision making because the staging system conveys prognosis.

methodsMany issues may be considered when deciding the preferred system (i.e. old or new), such as the level of evidence for one or more factors included in the system or the general opinions of expert clinicians. However, given the major objective of estimating prognosis on an ordinal scale, we argue that the rival staging system candidates should be compared on their ability to predict outcome. We sought to outline an algorithm that would compare two rival ordinal systems on their predictive ability.

resultsWe devised an algorithm based largely on the concordance index, which is appropriate for comparing two models in their ability to rank observations. We demonstrate our algorithm with a prostate cancer staging system example.

conclusionWe have provided an algorithm for selecting the preferred staging system based on prognostic accuracy. It appears to be useful for the purpose of selecting between two ordinal prediction models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansNeoplasm StagingPrognosisconcordance indexpredictionPrognosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.