SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2025
Methodological and applicability pitfalls of clinical prediction models for asthma diagnosis: a systematic review and critical appraisal of evidence.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChallenges in identifying patients at high risk of asthma have driven the development of clinical prediction models (CPMs) to optimise workflows. However, concerns about the transparency and usability of these models remain. This study systematically reviewed previously developed CPMs for asthma diagnosis, focusing on their reporting, methodology, and applicability.
methodsWe searched four databases—PubMed, Scopus, Embase, de an overview of existing diagnostic modand Cochrane Controlled Trials Register—using a pre-defined search strategy, covering their inception dates through September 2024. Grey literature and unpublished studies were identified through a search on Google Scholar. Data extraction followed the items and signaling questions outlined in TRIPOD+AI and PROBAST. The risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were evaluated using PROBAST.
resultsSixty-nine studies were included in this review, with 54 using supervised machine learning (ML)-based methods and 15 using regression-based methods. Regression-based CPMs had a higher event per variable (median 16.2; IQR: 14.0–42.0) than ML-based CPMs (median 8.2; IQR: 4.6–50.6). Both approaches exhibited high bias risk, particularly in the analysis (100%) and participant (69.6%) domains. Of all studies, 37.7% did not report the method for handling missing data and 91.3% inadequately reported model performance measures. High applicability concerns were 81.5% for ML-based studies and 60.0% for regression-based studies.
conclusionsThe majority of studies demonstrated poor methodology and significant applicability concerns, driven by critical flaws in participant recruitment, small sample sizes, handling of missing data, and predictor selection. It is well known that these pitfalls cause bias and reduce analytic power. CPM researchers should be aware of these pitfalls and adhere to TRIPOD+AI reporting guideline.
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.