Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31373722›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Assessment of heterogeneity in an individual participant data meta-analysis of prediction models: An overview and illustration.

Ewout W Steyerberg, Daan Nieboer, Thomas P A Debray, Hans C van Houwelingen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7787-0122
Daan NieboerDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4403-6537
Thomas P A DebrayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1790-2719
Hans C van HouwelingenDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0494-4637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical prediction models aim to provide estimates of absolute risk for a diagnostic or prognostic endpoint. Such models may be derived from data from various studies in the context of a meta-analysis. We describe and propose approaches for assessing heterogeneity in predictor effects and predictions arising from models based on data from different sources. These methods are illustrated in a case study with patients suffering from traumatic brain injury, where we aim to predict 6-month mortality based on individual patient data using meta-analytic techniques (15 studies, n = 11 022 patients). The insights into various aspects of heterogeneity are important to develop better models and understand problems with the transportability of absolute risk predictions.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalProbabilityComputer SimulationHumansRisk Assessmentheterogeneitymeta-analysispredictionregression modeling

Identifiers

PMID31373722
PMCPMC6772012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.