Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35045179›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review.

Cynthia Yang, Jan A Kors, Solomon Ioannou, Luis H John, Aniek F Markus, Alexandros Rekkas, Maria A J de Ridder, Tom M Seinen, Ross D Williams, Peter R Rijnbeek

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. AI Quality Standards in Health Care: Rapid Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

10 authors.

Cynthia YangDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6769-3153
Jan A KorsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Solomon IoannouDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Luis H JohnDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aniek F MarkusDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexandros RekkasDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5352-943X
Maria A J de RidderDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6555-2741
Tom M SeinenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5369-8260
Ross D WilliamsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7723-417X
Peter R RijnbeekDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

European Health Data & Evidence Network (EHDEN)European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and EFPIAInnovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU 806968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review aims to provide further insights into the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation over time. We focus on assessing the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies that developed 1 or more multivariable prognostic prediction models using electronic health record (EHR) data published in the period 2009-2019.

resultsWe identified 422 studies that developed a total of 579 clinical prediction models using EHR data. We observed a steep increase over the years in the number of developed models. The percentage of models externally validated in the same paper remained at around 10%. Throughout 2009-2019, for both the target population and the outcome definitions, code lists were provided for less than 20% of the models. For about half of the models that were developed using regression analysis, the final model was not completely presented. DISCUSSION: Overall, we observed limited improvement over time in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation. In particular, the prediction problem definition was often not clearly reported, and the final model was often not completely presented.

conclusionImprovement in the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators is still urgently needed to increase clinical adoption of developed models.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPrognosisclinical decision supportclinical prediction modelelectronic health recordexternal validationmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35045179
PMCPMC9006694

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.