Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26585325›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Synthesis of clinical prediction models under different sets of covariates with one individual patient data.

Daisuke Yoneoka, Masayuki Henmi, Norie Sawada, Manami Inoue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Note on Cherry-Picking in Meta-Analyses.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  3. Evidence synthesis in prognosis research.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daisuke YoneokaDepartment of Statistical Science, School of Multidisciplinary Sciences, SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Tokyo, Japan. yoneoka.daisuke@ism.ac.jp.
Masayuki HenmiDepartment of Data Science, The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan. henmi@ism.ac.jp.
Norie SawadaResearch Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan. nsawada@ncc.go.jp.
Manami InoueDepartment of Global Health Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. mnminoue@m.u-tokyo.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, increased development of clinical prediction models has been reported in the medical literature. However, evidence synthesis methodologies for these prediction models have not been sufficiently studied, especially for practical situations such as a meta-analyses where only aggregated summaries of important predictors are available. Also, in general, the covariate sets involved in the prediction models are not common across studies. As in ordinary model misspecification problems, dropping relevant covariates would raise potentially serious biases to the prediction models, and consequently to the synthesized results.

methodsWe developed synthesizing methods for logistic clinical prediction models with possibly different sets of covariates. In order to aggregate the regression coefficient estimates from different prediction models, we adopted a generalized least squares approach with non-linear terms (a sort of generalization of multivariate meta-analysis). Firstly, we evaluated omitted variable biases in this approach. Then, under an assumption of homogeneity of studies, we developed bias-corrected estimating procedures for regression coefficients of the synthesized prediction models.

resultsNumerical evaluations with simulations showed that our approach resulted in smaller biases and more precise estimates compared with conventional methods, which use only studies with common covariates or which utilize a mean imputation method for omitted coefficients. These methods were also applied to a series of Japanese epidemiologic studies on the incidence of a stroke.

conclusionsOur proposed methods adequately correct the biases due to different sets of covariates between studies, and would provide precise estimates compared with the conventional approach. If the assumption of homogeneity within studies is plausible, this methodology would be useful for incorporating prior published information into the construction of new prediction models.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalMultivariate AnalysisNonlinear DynamicsProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveStroke

Identifiers

PMID26585325
PMCPMC4653903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.