SynthesisBMJ open2024
Systematic review of prognostic models for predicting recurrence and survival in patients with treated oropharyngeal cancer.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiregion profiling of genomic and transcriptional heterogeneity in head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma.ESMO open · 2026Article
- End-of-life prognostic models in advanced cancer: a scoping review of model development, validation, and impact.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Explainable AI for Predicting Mortality Risk in Metastatic Cancer: Retrospective Cohort Study Using the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Metastatic Dataset.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aims to evaluate externally validated models for individualised prediction of recurrence or survival in adults treated with curative intent for oropharyngeal cancer.
designSystematic review.
settingHospital care.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted up to September 2023 and records were screened independently by at least two reviewers. The Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool was used to assess risk of bias (RoB). Model discrimination measures (c-indices) were presented in forest plots. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.
resultsFifteen studies developing and/or evaluating 25 individualised risk prediction models were included. The majority (77%) of c-indices for model developments and validations were ≥0.7 indicating 'good' discriminatory ability for models predicting overall survival. For disease-specific measures, most (73%) c-indices for model development were also ≥0.7, but fewer (40%) were ≥0.7 for external validations. Comparisons across models and outcome measures were hampered by heterogeneity. Only two studies directly compared models in the same cohort. Since all models were subject to a high RoB, primarily due to concerns with the analysis, the trustworthiness of the findings remains uncertain. Concerns included a lack of accounting for potentially missing data, model overfitting or competing risks as well as small event numbers. There were fewer concerns related to the participant, predictor and outcome domains, although reporting was not always detailed enough to make an informed decision. Where human papilloma virus (HPV) status and/or a radiomics score were included as a variable, models had better discriminative ability.
conclusionsThere were no models assessed as being at low RoB. Given that HPV status or a radiomics score appeared to improve model discriminative performance, further external validation of existing models to assess generalisability should focus on models that include HPV status as a variable. Development and validation of future models should be considered in HPV+ or HPV- cohorts separately to ensure representativeness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021248762.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.