Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37197813›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

What proportion of clinical prediction models make it to clinical practice? Protocol for a two-track follow-up study of prediction model development publications.

Banafsheh Arshi, Laure Wynants, Eline Rijnhart, Kelly Reeve, Laura Elizabeth Cowley, Luc J Smits

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Identifying people at risk of rheumatoid arthritis in primary care: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Banafsheh ArshiDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0223-7872
Laure WynantsDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3037-122X
Eline RijnhartDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5300-998X
Kelly ReeveDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, Department of Biostatistics, University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9325-6467
Laura Elizabeth CowleyPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7757-4219
Luc J SmitsDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands luc.smits@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0785-1345
Maastricht University · NLSwansea University · GBUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is known that only a limited proportion of developed clinical prediction models (CPMs) are implemented and/or used in clinical practice. This may result in a large amount of research waste, even when considering that some CPMs may demonstrate poor performance. Cross-sectional estimates of the numbers of CPMs that have been developed, validated, evaluated for impact or utilized in practice, have been made in specific medical fields, but studies across multiple fields and studies following up the fate of CPMs are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have conducted a systematic search for prediction model studies published between January 1995 and December 2020 using the Pubmed and Embase databases, applying a validated search strategy. Taking random samples for every calendar year, abstracts and articles were screened until a target of 100 CPM development studies were identified. Next, we will perform a forward citation search of the resulting CPM development article cohort to identify articles on external validation, impact assessment or implementation of those CPMs. We will also invite the authors of the development studies to complete an online survey to track implementation and clinical utilization of the CPMs.We will conduct a descriptive synthesis of the included studies, using data from the forward citation search and online survey to quantify the proportion of developed models that are validated, assessed for their impact, implemented and/or used in patient care. We will conduct time-to-event analysis using Kaplan-Meier plots. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patient data are involved in the research. Most information will be extracted from published articles. We request written informed consent from the survey respondents. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. OSF REGISTRATION: (https://osf.io/nj8s9).

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalChlorobenzenesCross-Sectional StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansPrognosisSulfides4-chlorophenyl methyl sulfideChlorobenzenesSulfidesEPIDEMIOLOGYPrimary PreventionPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37197813
PMCPMC10193067
OpenAlexW4376958667

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.