Dataset Information

Prediction models in first-episode psychosis: systematic review and critical appraisal.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People presenting with first-episode psychosis (FEP) have heterogenous outcomes. More than 40% fail to achieve symptomatic remission. Accurate prediction of individual outcome in FEP could facilitate early intervention to change the clinical trajectory and improve prognosis.

Aims

We aim to systematically review evidence for prediction models developed for predicting poor outcome in FEP.

Method

A protocol for this study was published on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42019156897. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we systematically searched six databases from inception to 28 January 2021. We used the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to extract and appraise the outcome prediction models. We considered study characteristics, methodology and model performance.

Results

Thirteen studies reporting 31 prediction models across a range of clinical outcomes met criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies used logistic regression with clinical and sociodemographic predictor variables. Just two studies were found to be at low risk of bias. Methodological limitations identified included a lack of appropriate validation, small sample sizes, poor handling of missing data and inadequate reporting of calibration and discrimination measures. To date, no model has been applied to clinical practice.

Conclusions

Future prediction studies in psychosis should prioritise methodological rigour and external validation in larger samples. The potential for prediction modelling in FEP is yet to be realised.

SUBMITTER: Lee R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7612705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: This work aims to systematically identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models for cervical cancer and provide a reference for clinical practice and future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 2020 and included studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for cervical cancer. Two reviewers extracted information based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modeling Studies checklist and assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Fifty-six eligible articles were identified, describing the development of 77 prognostic models and 27 external validation efforts. The 77 prognostic models focused on three types of cervical cancer patients at different stages, i.e., patients with early-stage cervical cancer (n = 29; 38%), patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (n = 27; 35%), and all-stage cervical cancer patients (n = 21; 27%). Among the 77 models, the most frequently used predictors were lymph node status (n = 57; 74%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (n = 42; 55%), histological types (n = 38; 49%), and tumor size (n = 37; 48%). The number of models that applied internal validation, presented a full equation, and assessed model calibration was 52 (68%), 16 (21%), and 45 (58%), respectively. Twenty-four models were externally validated, among which three were validated twice. None of the models were assessed with an overall low risk of bias. The Prediction Model of Failure in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer model was externally validated twice, with acceptable performance, and seemed to be the most reliable. Conclusions: Methodological details including internal validation, sample size, and handling of missing data need to be emphasized on, and external validation is needed to facilitate the application and generalization of models for cervical cancer.

Project description:ObjectivesImproved ability to predict impairments after critical illness could guide clinical decision-making, inform trial enrollment, and facilitate comprehensive patient recovery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to investigate whether physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments could be predicted in adult survivors of critical illness.Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018117255) was undertaken on December 8, 2018, and the final searches updated on January 20, 2019.Study selectionFour independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Studies were eligible if a prediction model was developed, validated, or updated for impairments after critical illness in adult patients. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or an independent adjudicator.Data extractionData on study characteristics, timing of outcome measurement, candidate predictors, and analytic strategies used were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool.Data synthesisOf 8,549 screened studies, three studies met inclusion. All three studies focused on the development of a prediction model to predict (1) a mental health composite outcome at 3 months post discharge, (2) return-to-pre-ICU functioning and residence at 6 months post discharge, and (3) physical function 2 months post discharge. Only one model had been externally validated. All studies had a high risk of bias, primarily due to the sample size, and statistical methods used to develop and select the predictors for the prediction published model.ConclusionsWe only found three studies that developed a prediction model of any post-ICU impairment. There are several opportunities for improvement for future prediction model development, including the use of standardized outcomes and time horizons, and improved study design and statistical methodology.

Project description:ObjectiveTo map and assess prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed until November 2018 and hand searched references from eligible articles.Eligibility criteria for study selectionStudies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model in COPD patients and focusing on any potential clinical outcome.ResultsThe systematic search yielded 228 eligible articles, describing the development of 408 prognostic models, the external validation of 38 models, and the validation of 20 prognostic models derived for diseases other than COPD. The 408 prognostic models were developed in three clinical settings: outpatients (n=239; 59%), patients admitted to hospital (n=155; 38%), and patients attending the emergency department (n=14; 3%). Among the 408 prognostic models, the most prevalent endpoints were mortality (n=209; 51%), risk for acute exacerbation of COPD (n=42; 10%), and risk for readmission after the index hospital admission (n=36; 9%). Overall, the most commonly used predictors were age (n=166; 41%), forced expiratory volume in one second (n=85; 21%), sex (n=74; 18%), body mass index (n=66; 16%), and smoking (n=65; 16%). Of the 408 prognostic models, 100 (25%) were internally validated and 91 (23%) examined the calibration of the developed model. For 286 (70%) models a model presentation was not available, and only 56 (14%) models were presented through the full equation. Model discrimination using the C statistic was available for 311 (76%) models. 38 models were externally validated, but in only 12 of these was the validation performed by a fully independent team. Only seven prognostic models with an overall low risk of bias according to PROBAST were identified. These models were ADO, B-AE-D, B-AE-D-C, extended ADO, updated ADO, updated BODE, and a model developed by Bertens et al. A meta-analysis of C statistics was performed for 12 prognostic models, and the summary estimates ranged from 0.611 to 0.769.ConclusionsThis study constitutes a detailed mapping and assessment of the prognostic models for outcome prediction in COPD patients. The findings indicate several methodological pitfalls in their development and a low rate of external validation. Future research should focus on the improvement of existing models through update and external validation, as well as the assessment of the safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of the application of these prognostic models in clinical practice through impact studies.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017069247.

Project description:IntroductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) has high morbidity and mortality in intensive care units, which can lead to chronic kidney disease, more costs and longer hospital stay. Early identification of AKI is crucial for clinical intervention. Although various risk prediction models have been developed to identify AKI, the overall predictive performance varies widely across studies. Owing to the different disease scenarios and the small number of externally validated cohorts in different prediction models, the stability and applicability of these models for AKI in critically ill patients are controversial. Moreover, there are no current risk-classification tools that are standardised for prediction of AKI in critically ill patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to map and assess prediction models for AKI in critically ill patients based on a comprehensive literature review.Methods and analysisA systematic review with meta-analysis is designed and will be conducted according to the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Three databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE from inception through October 2020 will be searched to identify all studies describing development and/or external validation of original multivariable models for predicting AKI in critically ill patients. Random-effects meta-analyses for external validation studies will be performed to estimate the performance of each model. The restricted maximum likelihood estimation and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method under a random-effects model will be applied to estimate the summary C statistic and 95% CI. 95% prediction interval integrating the heterogeneity will also be calculated to pool C-statistics to predict a possible range of C-statistics of future validation studies. Two investigators will extract data independently using the CHARMS checklist. Study quality or risk of bias will be assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient informed consent are not required because all information will be abstracted from published literatures. We plan to share our results with clinicians and publish them in a general or critical care medicine peer-reviewed journal. We also plan to present our results at critical care international conferences.Osf registration number10.17605/OSF.IO/X25AT.