Dataset Information

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research.

ABSTRACT: Prognostic models are abundant in the medical literature yet their use in practice seems limited. In this article, the third in the PROGRESS series, the authors review how such models are developed and validated, and then address how prognostic models are assessed for their impact on practice and patient outcomes, illustrating these ideas with examples.

SUBMITTER: Steyerberg EW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3564751 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research.

Steyerberg Ewout W EW Moons Karel G M KG van der Windt Danielle A DA Hayden Jill A JA Perel Pablo P Schroter Sara S Riley Richard D RD Hemingway Harry H Altman Douglas G DG

PLoS medicine 20130205 2

Prognostic models are abundant in the medical literature yet their use in practice seems limited. In this article, the third in the PROGRESS series, the authors review how such models are developed and validated, and then address how prognostic models are assessed for their impact on practice and patient outcomes, illustrating these ideas with examples. ...[more]

PMID: 23393430

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIgnoring treatments in prognostic model development or validation can affect the accuracy and transportability of models. We aim to quantify the extent to which the effects of treatment have been addressed in existing prognostic model research and provide recommendations for the handling and reporting of treatment use in future studies.MethodsWe first describe how and when the use of treatments by individuals in a prognostic study can influence the development or validation of a prognostic model. We subsequently conducted a systematic review of the handling and reporting of treatment use in prognostic model studies in cardiovascular medicine. Data on treatment use (e.g. medications, surgeries, lifestyle interventions), the timing of their use, and the handling of such treatment use in the analyses were extracted and summarised.ResultsThree hundred two articles were included in the review. Treatment use was not mentioned in 91 (30%) articles. One hundred forty-six (48%) reported specific information about treatment use in their studies; 78 (26%) provided information about multiple treatments. Three articles (1%) reported changes in medication use ("treatment drop-in") during follow-up. Seventy-nine articles (26%) excluded treated individuals from their analysis, 80 articles (26%) modelled treatment as an outcome, and of the 155 articles that developed a model, 86 (55%) modelled treatment use, almost exclusively at baseline, as a predictor.ConclusionsThe use of treatments has been partly considered by the majority of CVD prognostic model studies. Detailed accounts including, for example, information on treatment drop-in were rare. Where relevant, the use of treatments should be considered in the analysis of prognostic model studies, particularly when a prognostic model is designed to guide the use of certain treatments and these treatments have been used by the study participants. Future prognostic model studies should clearly report the use of treatments by study participants and consider the potential impact of treatment use on the study findings.

Dataset Information

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research.

Publications

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets