ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2016
Prognosis research and risk of bias.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 5 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between Functional Performance and Return to Performance in High-Impact Sports after Lower Extremity Injury: A Systematic Review.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Outcomes in syncope research: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Prognostic models for complete recovery in ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC neurology · 2018Pooled it
- Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: an umbrella review of frailty screening tools.JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports · 2017Pooled it
- Development and Validation of Predictive Model for a Diagnosis of First Episode Psychosis Using the Multinational EU-GEI Case-control Study and Modern Statistical Learning Methods.Schizophrenia bulletin open · 2023Article
- Prediction of the postoperative 90-day mortality after acute colorectal cancer surgery: development and temporal validation of the ACORCA model.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Electronically Available Comorbidities Should Be Used in Surgical Site Infection Risk Adjustment.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interest in prognosis research has been steadily growing during the past few decades because of its impact on clinical decision making. However, since the methodology of prognosis research is still incompletely defined, the quality of published prognosis studies is largely unsatisfactory. Seven major domain for risk of bias in prognosis research have been identified, including study participation, attrition, selection of candidate predictors, outcome definition, confounding factors, analysis, and interpretation of results. The methodology for performing prognostic studies is currently aimed at avoiding such potential biases. Amongst methodologic requirements in prognosis research, the following should be considered most relevant: beforehand publication of the study protocol including the full statistical plan; inclusion of patients at a similar point along the course of the disease; rationale and biological plausibility of candidate predictors; complete information; control of overfitting and underfitting; adequate data handling and analysis; publication of the original data. Validation and analysis of the impact that prediction models have on patient management, are key steps for translation of prognosis research into clinical practice. Finally, transparent reporting of prognostic studies is essential for assessing reliability, applicability and generalizability of study results, and recommendations are now available for this aim.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26910239What 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.