Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31655567›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2019

Incorporating repeated measurements into prediction models in the critical care setting: a framework, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joost D J Plate, Rutger R van de Leur, Luke P H Leenen, Falco Hietbrink, Linda M Peelen, M J C Eijkemans

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

6 authors.

Joost D J PlateDivision of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584, CX, the Netherlands. J.D.J.Plate@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4928-414X
Rutger R van de LeurJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Luke P H LeenenDivision of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584, CX, the Netherlands.
Falco HietbrinkDivision of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584, CX, the Netherlands.
Linda M PeelenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
M J C EijkemansJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incorporation of repeated measurements into multivariable prediction research may greatly enhance predictive performance. However, the methodological possibilities vary widely and a structured overview of the possible and utilized approaches lacks. Therefore, we [1] propose a structured framework for these approaches, [2] determine what methods are currently used to incorporate repeated measurements in prediction research in the critical care setting and, where possible, [3] assess the added discriminative value of incorporating repeated measurements.

methodsThe proposed framework consists of three domains: the observation window (static or dynamic), the processing of the raw data (raw data modelling, feature extraction and reduction) and the type of modelling. A systematic review was performed to identify studies which incorporate repeated measurements to predict (e.g. mortality) in the critical care setting. The within-study difference in c-statistics between models with versus without repeated measurements were obtained and pooled in a meta-analysis.

resultsFrom the 2618 studies found, 29 studies incorporated multiple repeated measurements. The annual number of studies with repeated measurements increased from 2.8/year (2000-2005) to 16.0/year (2016-2018). The majority of studies that incorporated repeated measurements for prediction research used a dynamic observation window, and extracted features directly from the data. Differences in c statistics ranged from - 0.048 to 0.217 in favour of models that utilize repeated measurements.

conclusionsRepeated measurements are increasingly common to predict events in the critical care domain, but their incorporation is lagging. A framework of possible approaches could aid researchers to optimize future prediction models.

Indexed as

Critical CareData CollectionData MiningForecastingHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID31655567
PMCPMC6815391

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.