Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31585960›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and critical appraisal.

Vanesa Bellou, Lazaros Belbasis, Athanasios K Konstantinidis, Ioanna Tzoulaki, Evangelos Evangelou

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 22 pooled it
16.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 206 citations in OpenAlex.

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

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Vanesa BellouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece.
Lazaros BelbasisDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece.
Athanasios K KonstantinidisDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of Ioannina, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece.
Ioanna TzoulakiDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece.
Evangelos EvangelouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-5488-2999
University of Ioannina · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo map and assess prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed until November 2018 and hand searched references from eligible articles. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model in COPD patients and focusing on any potential clinical outcome.

resultsThe systematic search yielded 228 eligible articles, describing the development of 408 prognostic models, the external validation of 38 models, and the validation of 20 prognostic models derived for diseases other than COPD. The 408 prognostic models were developed in three clinical settings: outpatients (n=239; 59%), patients admitted to hospital (n=155; 38%), and patients attending the emergency department (n=14; 3%). Among the 408 prognostic models, the most prevalent endpoints were mortality (n=209; 51%), risk for acute exacerbation of COPD (n=42; 10%), and risk for readmission after the index hospital admission (n=36; 9%). Overall, the most commonly used predictors were age (n=166; 41%), forced expiratory volume in one second (n=85; 21%), sex (n=74; 18%), body mass index (n=66; 16%), and smoking (n=65; 16%). Of the 408 prognostic models, 100 (25%) were internally validated and 91 (23%) examined the calibration of the developed model. For 286 (70%) models a model presentation was not available, and only 56 (14%) models were presented through the full equation. Model discrimination using the C statistic was available for 311 (76%) models. 38 models were externally validated, but in only 12 of these was the validation performed by a fully independent team. Only seven prognostic models with an overall low risk of bias according to PROBAST were identified. These models were ADO, B-AE-D, B-AE-D-C, extended ADO, updated ADO, updated BODE, and a model developed by Bertens et al. A meta-analysis of C statistics was performed for 12 prognostic models, and the summary estimates ranged from 0.611 to 0.769.

conclusionsThis study constitutes a detailed mapping and assessment of the prognostic models for outcome prediction in COPD patients. The findings indicate several methodological pitfalls in their development and a low rate of external validation. Future research should focus on the improvement of existing models through update and external validation, as well as the assessment of the safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of the application of these prognostic models in clinical practice through impact studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017069247.

Indexed as

HumansModels, TheoreticalPrognosisPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

Identifiers

PMID31585960
PMCPMC6776831
OpenAlexW2979177730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.