Are we ready to predict late effects? A systematic review of clinically useful prediction models.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Salz T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4518853 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Are we ready to predict late effects? A systematic review of clinically useful prediction models.
Salz Talya T Baxi Shrujal S SS Raghunathan Nirupa N Onstad Erin E EE Freedman Andrew N AN Moskowitz Chaya S CS Dalton Susanne Oksbjerg SO Goodman Karyn A KA Johansen Christoffer C Matasar Matthew J MJ de Nully Brown Peter P Oeffinger Kevin C KC Vickers Andrew J AJ
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 20150227 6
<h4>Background</h4>After completing treatment for cancer, survivors may experience late effects: consequences of treatment that persist or arise after a latent period.<h4>Purpose</h4>To identify and describe all models that predict the risk of late effects and could be used in clinical practice.<h4>Data sources</h4>We searched Medline through April 2014.<h4>Study selection</h4>Studies describing models that (1) predicted the absolute risk of a late effect present at least 1 year post-treatment, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundRisk prediction models have been developed to identify those at increased risk for emergency admissions, which could facilitate targeted interventions in primary care to prevent these events.ObjectiveSystematic review of validated risk prediction models for predicting emergency hospital admissions in community-dwelling adults.MethodsA systematic literature review and narrative analysis was conducted. Inclusion criteria were as follows;Populationcommunity-dwelling adults (aged 18 years and above); Risk: risk prediction models, not contingent on an index hospital admission, with a derivation and ?1 validation cohort;Primary outcomeemergency hospital admission (defined as unplanned overnight stay in hospital);Study designretrospective or prospective cohort studies.ResultsOf 18,983 records reviewed, 27 unique risk prediction models met the inclusion criteria. Eleven were developed in the United States, 11 in the United Kingdom, 3 in Italy, 1 in Spain, and 1 in Canada. Nine models were derived using self-report data, and the remainder (n=18) used routine administrative or clinical record data. Total study sample sizes ranged from 96 to 4.7 million participants. Predictor variables most frequently included in models were: (1) named medical diagnoses (n=23); (2) age (n=23); (3) prior emergency admission (n=22); and (4) sex (n=18). Eleven models included nonmedical factors, such as functional status and social supports. Regarding predictive accuracy, models developed using administrative or clinical record data tended to perform better than those developed using self-report data (c statistics 0.63-0.83 vs. 0.61-0.74, respectively). Six models reported c statistics of >0.8, indicating good performance. All 6 included variables for prior health care utilization, multimorbidity or polypharmacy, and named medical diagnoses or prescribed medications. Three predicted admissions regarded as being ambulatory care sensitive.ConclusionsThis study suggests that risk models developed using administrative or clinical record data tend to perform better. In applying a risk prediction model to a new population, careful consideration needs to be given to the purpose of its use and local factors.
| S-EPMC4219489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs well as being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension is also a health condition in its own right. Risk prediction models may be of value in identifying those individuals at risk of developing hypertension who are likely to benefit most from interventions.Methods and findingsTo synthesize existing evidence on the performance of these models, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE; examined bibliographies of retrieved articles; contacted experts in the field; and searched our own files. Dual review of identified studies was conducted. Included studies had to report on the development, validation, or impact analysis of a hypertension risk prediction model. For each publication, information was extracted on study design and characteristics, predictors, model discrimination, calibration and reclassification ability, validation and impact analysis. Eleven studies reporting on 15 different hypertension prediction risk models were identified. Age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, and blood pressure variables were the most common predictor variables included in models. Most risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory ability (C-statistic>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall acceptable. Two hypertension risk models, the Framingham and Hopkins, have been externally validated, displaying acceptable-to-good discrimination, and C-statistic ranging from 0.71 to 0.81. Lack of individual-level data precluded analyses of the risk models in subgroups.ConclusionsThe discrimination ability of existing hypertension risk prediction tools is acceptable, but the impact of using these tools on prescriptions and outcomes of hypertension prevention is unclear.
| S-EPMC3702558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSummarize performance and development of ICU delirium-prediction models published within the past 5 years.Data sourcesSystematic electronic searches were conducted in April 2019 using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify peer-reviewed studies.Study selectionEligible studies were published in English during the past 5 years that specifically addressed the development, validation, or recalibration of delirium-prediction models in adult ICU populations.Data extractionScreened citations were extracted independently by three investigators with a 42% overlap to verify consistency using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies.Data synthesisEighteen studies featuring 23 distinct prediction models were included. Model performance varied greatly, as assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.62-0.94), specificity (0.50-0.97), and sensitivity (0.45-0.96). Most models used data collected from a single time point or window to predict the occurrence of delirium at any point during hospital or ICU admission, and lacked mechanisms for providing pragmatic, actionable predictions to clinicians.ConclusionsAlthough most ICU delirium-prediction models have relatively good performance, they have limited applicability to clinical practice. Most models were static, making predictions based on data collected at a single time-point, failing to account for fluctuating conditions during ICU admission. Further research is needed to create clinically relevant dynamic delirium-prediction models that can adapt to changes in individual patient physiology over time and deliver actionable predictions to clinicians.
| S-EPMC7746201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is little evidence on the accuracy of psychosis relapse prediction models. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of relapse prediction models in psychosis.MethodWe conducted a literature search including studies that developed and/or validated psychosis relapse prediction models, with or without external model validation. Models had to target people with psychosis and predict relapse. The key databases searched were; Embase, Medline, Medline In-Process Citations & Daily Update, PsychINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index, from inception to September 2016. Prediction modelling studies were assessed for risk of bias and applicability using the PROBAST tool.ResultsThere were two eligible studies, which included 33,088 participants. One developed a model using prodromal symptoms and illness-related variables, which explained 14% of relapse variance but was at high risk of bias. The second developed a model using administrative data which was moderately discriminative (C = 0.631) and associated with relapse (OR 1.11 95% CI 1.10, 1.12) and achieved moderately discriminative capacity when validated (C = 0.630). The risk of bias was low.ConclusionsDue to a lack of high quality evidence it is not possible to make any specific recommendations about the predictors that should be included in a prognostic model for relapse. For instance, it is unclear whether prodromal symptoms are useful for predicting relapse. The use of routine data to develop prediction models may be a more promising approach, although we could not empirically compare the two included studies.
| S-EPMC5608199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify existing prognostic delirium prediction models and evaluate their validity and statistical methodology in the older adult (?60 years) acute hospital population. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase were searched from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2016. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and CHARMS Statement guided protocol development. INCLUSION CRITERIA:age >60 years, inpatient, developed/validated a prognostic delirium prediction model. EXCLUSION CRITERIA:alcohol-related delirium, sample size ?50. The primary performance measures were calibration and discrimination statistics. Two authors independently conducted search and extracted data. The synthesis of data was done by the first author. Disagreement was resolved by the mentoring author. RESULTS:The initial search resulted in 7,502 studies. Following full-text review of 192 studies, 33 were excluded based on age criteria (<60?years) and 27 met the defined criteria. Twenty-three delirium prediction models were identified, 14 were externally validated and 3 were internally validated. The following populations were represented: 11 medical, 3 medical/surgical and 13 surgical. The assessment of delirium was often non-systematic, resulting in varied incidence. Fourteen models were externally validated with an area under the receiver operating curve range from 0.52 to 0.94. Limitations in design, data collection methods and model metric reporting statistics were identified. CONCLUSIONS:Delirium prediction models for older adults show variable and typically inadequate predictive capabilities. Our review highlights the need for development of robust models to predict delirium in older inpatients. We provide recommendations for the development of such models.
| S-EPMC5931306 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo look at the available literature on validated prediction models for contrast induced nephropathy and describe their characteristics.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and CINAHL (cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature) databases.Review methodsDatabases searched from inception to 2015, and the retrieved reference lists hand searched. Dual reviews were conducted to identify studies published in the English language of prediction models tested with patients that included derivation and validation cohorts. Data were extracted on baseline patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, modelling methods, metrics of model performance, risk of bias, and clinical usefulness. Eligible studies evaluated characteristics of predictive models that identified patients at risk of contrast induced nephropathy among adults undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure using conventional radiocontrast media (media used for computed tomography or angiography, and not gadolinium based contrast).Results16 studies were identified, describing 12 prediction models. Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was identified, as a result of different clinical settings, cointerventions, and the timing of creatinine measurement to define contrast induced nephropathy. Ten models were validated internally and six were validated externally. Discrimination varied in studies that were validated internally (C statistic 0.61-0.95) and externally (0.57-0.86). Only one study presented reclassification indices. The majority of higher performing models included measures of pre-existing chronic kidney disease, age, diabetes, heart failure or impaired ejection fraction, and hypotension or shock. No prediction model evaluated its effect on clinical decision making or patient outcomes.ConclusionsMost predictive models for contrast induced nephropathy in clinical use have modest ability, and are only relevant to patients receiving contrast for coronary angiography. Further research is needed to develop models that can better inform patient centred decision making, as well as improve the use of prevention strategies for contrast induced nephropathy.
| S-EPMC4784870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.ObjectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population.Evidence acquisitionA search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.Evidence synthesisThe search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.ConclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies.Patient summaryIn this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.
| S-EPMC8642244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Survival is strongly related to stage at diagnosis and population-based screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Stratifying the population by risk offers the potential to improve the efficiency of screening. In this systematic review we searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict future risk of primary colorectal cancer for asymptomatic individuals. A total of 12,808 papers were identified from the literature search and nine through citation searching. Fifty-two risk models were included. Where reported (n = 37), half the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC >0.7) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed (n = 21), but overall acceptable. In external validation studies, 10 models showed acceptable discrimination (AUROC 0.71-0.78). These include two with only three variables (age, gender, and BMI; age, gender, and family history of colorectal cancer). A small number of prediction models developed from case-control studies of genetic biomarkers also show some promise but require further external validation using population-based samples. Further research should focus on the feasibility and impact of incorporating such models into stratified screening programmes.
| S-EPMC7610622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the last 30 years, there has been an increasing incidence of oral cancer worldwide. Earlier detection of oral cancer has been shown to improve survival rates. However, given the relatively low prevalence of this disease, population-wide screening is likely to be inefficient. Risk prediction models could be used to target screening to those at highest risk or to select individuals for preventative interventions. This review (a) systematically identified published models that predict the development of oral cancer and are suitable for use in the general population and (b) described and compared the identified models, focusing on their development, including risk factors, performance and applicability to risk-stratified screening. A search was carried out in November 2022 in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify primary research papers that report the development or validation of models predicting the risk of developing oral cancer (cancers of the oral cavity or oropharynx). The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the identified studies and the applicability of the models they describe. The search identified 11,222 articles, of which 14 studies (describing 23 models), satisfied the eligibility criteria of this review. The most commonly included risk factors were age (n = 20), alcohol consumption (n = 18) and smoking (n = 17). Six of the included models incorporated genetic information and three used biomarkers as predictors. Including information on human papillomavirus status was shown to improve model performance; however, this was only included in a small number of models. Most of the identified models (n = 13) showed good or excellent discrimination (AUROC > 0.7). Only fourteen models had been validated and only two of these validations were carried out in populations distinct from the model development population (external validation). Conclusions: Several risk prediction models have been identified that could be used to identify individuals at the highest risk of oral cancer within the context of screening programmes. However, external validation of these models in the target population is required, and, subsequently, an assessment of the feasibility of implementation with a risk-stratified screening programme for oral cancer.
| S-EPMC10854942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextBeing born very preterm is associated with elevated risk for neonatal mortality. The aim of this review is to give an overview of prediction models for mortality in very premature infants, assess their quality, identify important predictor variables, and provide recommendations for development of future models.MethodsStudies were included which reported the predictive performance of a model for mortality in a very preterm or very low birth weight population, and classified as development, validation, or impact studies. For each development study, we recorded the population, variables, aim, predictive performance of the model, and the number of times each model had been validated. Reporting quality criteria and minimum methodological criteria were established and assessed for development studies.ResultsWe identified 41 development studies and 18 validation studies. In addition to gestational age and birth weight, eight variables frequently predicted survival: being of average size for gestational age, female gender, non-white ethnicity, absence of serious congenital malformations, use of antenatal steroids, higher 5-minute Apgar score, normal temperature on admission, and better respiratory status. Twelve studies met our methodological criteria, three of which have been externally validated. Low reporting scores were seen in reporting of performance measures, internal and external validation, and handling of missing data.ConclusionsMultivariate models can predict mortality better than birth weight or gestational age alone in very preterm infants. There are validated prediction models for classification and case-mix adjustment. Additional research is needed in validation and impact studies of existing models, and in prediction of mortality in the clinically important subgroup of infants where age and weight alone give only an equivocal prognosis.
| S-EPMC3169543 | biostudies-literature