47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Clinical prediction models combine multiple predictors to estimate risk for the presence of a particular condition (diagnostic models) or the occurrence of a certain event in the future (prognostic models). PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool), a tool for assessing the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, was developed by a steering group that considered existing ROB tools and reporting guidelines. The tool was informed by a Delphi procedure involving 38 experts and was refined through piloting. PROBAST is organized into the following 4 domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis. These domains contain a total of 20 signaling questions to facilitate structured judgment of ROB, which was defined to occur when shortcomings in study design, conduct, or analysis lead to systematically distorted estimates of model predictive performance. PROBAST enables a focused and transparent approach to assessing the ROB and applicability of studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models for individualized predictions. Although PROBAST was designed for systematic reviews, it can be used more generally in critical appraisal of prediction model studies. Potential users include organizations supporting decision making, researchers and clinicians who are interested in evidence-based medicine or involved in guideline development, journal editors, and manuscript reviewers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration

          Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Prognostic models: a methodological framework and review of models for breast cancer.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Systematic Review of Prognostic Models in Patients with Acute Stroke

              Prognostic models in stroke may be useful in clinical practice and research. We systematically reviewed the methodology and results of studies that have identified independent predictors of survival, independence in activities of daily living, and getting home in patients with acute stroke. Eligible studies (published in full in English) included at least 100 patients in whom at least 3 predictor variables were assessed within 30 days of stroke onset and who were followed up for at least 30 days. We recorded 25 indicators of the validity and practicality of each model and identified variables that were consistent independent predictors of each outcome. Eighty-three separate prognostic models were found but most had potentially serious deficiencies in internal and statistical validity, many had limited generalisability, and none had been adequately validated. Only 4 studies met 8 simple quality criteria. Over 150 different predictor variables have been analysed but most were assessed in only 1 or 2 models. None of the existing prognostic models have been sufficiently well developed and validated to be useful in either clinical practice or research. Better quality models must be produced to enable, for example, adequate case-mix correction when comparing outcome among different groups of stroke patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annals of Internal Medicine
                Ann Intern Med
                American College of Physicians
                0003-4819
                January 01 2019
                January 01 2019
                : 170
                : 1
                : 51
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, York, United Kingdom (R.F.W., M.W.)
                [2 ]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care and Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands (K.G.M., J.B.R.)
                [3 ]Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom (R.D.R.)
                [4 ]Medical School of the University of Bristol and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom (P.F.W.)
                [5 ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (G.S.C.)
                [6 ]Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, York, United Kingdom, and School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (J.K.)
                [7 ]Institute of Applied Health Research, National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom (S.M.)
                Article
                10.7326/M18-1376
                30596875
                d5121a42-6258-4c9b-8e3f-bf6b10762112
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article