Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35934199›Full record

ArticleClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2023

How to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies.

Johanna A A Damen, Karel G M Moons, Maarten van Smeden, Lotty Hooft

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 28 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 28 pooled it
16.6field-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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 28 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johanna A A DamenCochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Electronic address: J.A.A.Damen@umcutrecht.nl.
Karel G M MoonsCochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Maarten van SmedenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Lotty HooftCochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostic models are typically developed to estimate the risk that an individual in a particular health state will develop a particular health outcome, to support (shared) decision making. Systematic reviews of prognostic model studies can help identify prognostic models that need to further be validated or are ready to be implemented in healthcare.

objectivesTo provide a step-by-step guidance on how to conduct and read a systematic review of prognostic model studies and to provide an overview of methodology and guidance available for every step of the review progress. SOURCES: Published, peer-reviewed guidance articles. CONTENT: We describe the following steps for conducting a systematic review of prognosis studies: 1) Developing the review question using the Population, Index model, Comparator model, Outcome(s), Timing, Setting format, 2) Searching and selection of articles, 3) Data extraction using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist, 4) Quality and risk of bias assessment using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment (PROBAST) tool, 5) Analysing data and undertaking quantitative meta-analysis, and 6) Presenting summary of findings, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions. Guidance for each step is described and illustrated using a case study on prognostic models for patients with COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: Guidance for conducting a systematic review of prognosis studies is available, but the implications of these reviews for clinical practice and further research highly depend on complete reporting of primary studies.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicBiasCOVID-19HumansPrognosisMeta-analysisPrediction modelPrognosisPrognostic modelSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35934199
PMCPMC9351211
OpenAlexW4289778980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.