Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32205374›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review.

Mohamed Yusuf, Ignacio Atal, Jacques Li, Philip Smith, Philippe Ravaud, Martin Fergie, Michael Callaghan, James Selfe

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. AI Quality Standards in Health Care: Rapid Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  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. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohamed YusufHealth Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK m.yusuf@mmu.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9339-4613
Ignacio AtalCentre for Research and Interdisciplinarity (CRI), Université Paris Descartes, Paris, Île-de-France, France.
Jacques LiU1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cite Research Center (CRESS), Methods of therapeutic evaluation of chronic diseases team (METHODS), INSERM, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, Île-de-France, France.
Philip SmithHealth Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Philippe RavaudU1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cite Research Center (CRESS), Methods of therapeutic evaluation of chronic diseases team (METHODS), INSERM, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, Île-de-France, France.
Martin FergieImaging and Data Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Michael CallaghanHealth Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
James SelfeHealth Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Metropolitan University · GBDélégation Paris 5 · FRUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on.

methodMedline Core Clinical Journals were searched for studies published between July 2015 and July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. An extraction list was developed from the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible articles. Third and fourth reviewers checked, verified the extracted data as well as resolved any discrepancies between the reviewers.

resultsThe search results yielded 161 papers, of which 28 conformed to the eligibility criteria. Detail of data source was reported in 24 of the 28 papers. For all of the papers, the set of patients on which the ML-based diagnostic system was evaluated was partitioned from a larger dataset, and the method for deriving such set was always reported. Information on the diagnostic/non-diagnostic classification was reported well (23/28). The least reported items were the use of reporting guideline (0/28), distribution of disease severity (8/28 patient flow diagram (10/28) and distribution of alternative diagnosis (10/28). A large proportion of studies (23/28) had a delay between the conduct of the reference standard and ML tests, while one study did not and four studies were unclear. For 15 studies, it was unclear whether the evaluation group corresponded to the setting in which the ML test will be applied to.

conclusionAll studies in this review failed to use reporting guidelines, and a large proportion of them lacked adequate detail on participants, making it difficult to replicate, assess and interpret study findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018099167.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningHumansResearch Designclinical predictionmachine learningmedical diagnosisreporting quality

Identifiers

PMID32205374
PMCPMC7103817
OpenAlexW3012895958

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.