Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32671229›Full record

ReviewDiagnostic and prognostic research2020

Harnessing repeated measurements of predictor variables for clinical risk prediction: a review of existing methods.

Lucy M Bull, Mark Lunt, Glen P Martin, Kimme Hyrich, Jamie C Sergeant

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluation of trajectory analysis for disease risk assessment: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  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

5 authors.

Lucy M BullCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3926-3030
Mark LuntCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Kimme HyrichCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jamie C SergeantCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2018-11-ST2-052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical prediction models (CPMs) predict the risk of health outcomes for individual patients. The majority of existing CPMs only harness cross-sectional patient information. Incorporating repeated measurements, such as those stored in electronic health records, into CPMs may provide an opportunity to enhance their performance. However, the number and complexity of methodological approaches available could make it difficult for researchers to explore this opportunity. Our objective was to review the literature and summarise existing approaches for harnessing repeated measurements of predictor variables in CPMs, primarily to make this field more accessible for applied researchers.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for articles reporting the development of a multivariable CPM for individual-level prediction of future binary or time-to-event outcomes and modelling repeated measurements of at least one predictor. Information was extracted on the following: the methodology used, its specific aim, reported advantages and limitations, and software available to apply the method.

resultsThe search revealed 217 relevant articles. Seven methodological frameworks were identified: time-dependent covariate modelling, generalised estimating equations, landmark analysis, two-stage modelling, joint-modelling, trajectory classification and machine learning. Each of these frameworks satisfies at least one of three aims: to better represent the predictor-outcome relationship over time, to infer a covariate value at a pre-specified time and to account for the effect of covariate change.

conclusionsThe applicability of identified methods depends on the motivation for including longitudinal information and the method's compatibility with the clinical context and available patient data, for both model development and risk estimation in practice.

Indexed as

Clinical risk predictionDynamic predictionElectronic health recordsJoint modelsLongitudinal dataPersonalised medicinePrediction modelsRepeated observationsSurvival analysisTime-dependent covariates

Identifiers

PMID32671229
PMCPMC7346415

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.