Dataset Information

Appraising prediction research: a guide and meta-review on bias and applicability assessment using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).

ABSTRACT: Over the past few years, a large number of prediction models have been published, often of poor methodological quality. Seemingly objective and straightforward, prediction models provide a risk estimate for the outcome of interest, usually based on readily available clinical information. Yet, using models of substandard methodological rigour, especially without external validation, may result in incorrect risk estimates and consequently misclassification. To assess and combat bias in prediction research the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) was published in 2019. This risk of bias (ROB) tool includes four domains and 20 signalling questions highlighting methodological flaws, and provides guidance in assessing the applicability of the model. In this paper, the PROBAST will be discussed, along with an in-depth review of two commonly encountered pitfalls in prediction modelling that may induce bias: overfitting and composite endpoints. We illustrate the prevalence of potential bias in prediction models with a meta-review of 50 systematic reviews that used the PROBAST to appraise their included studies, thus including 1510 different studies on 2104 prediction models. All domains showed an unclear or high ROB; these results were markedly stable over time, highlighting the urgent need for attention on bias in prediction research. This article aims to do just that by providing (1) the clinician with tools to evaluate the (methodological) quality of a clinical prediction model, (2) the researcher working on a review with methods to appraise the included models, and (3) the researcher developing a model with suggestions to improve model quality.

SUBMITTER: de Jong Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9291738 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model of Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) were both published to improve the reporting and critical appraisal of prediction model studies for diagnosis and prognosis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop an extension to the TRIPOD statement (TRIPOD-artificial intelligence, AI) and the PROBAST (PROBAST-AI) tool for prediction model studies that applied machine learning techniques.Methods and analysisTRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI will be developed following published guidance from the EQUATOR Network, and will comprise five stages. Stage 1 will comprise two systematic reviews (across all medical fields and specifically in oncology) to examine the quality of reporting in published machine-learning-based prediction model studies. In stage 2, we will consult a diverse group of key stakeholders using a Delphi process to identify items to be considered for inclusion in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 3 will be virtual consensus meetings to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 4 will involve developing the TRIPOD-AI checklist and the PROBAST-AI tool, and writing the accompanying explanation and elaboration papers. In the final stage, stage 5, we will disseminate TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI via journals, conferences, blogs, websites (including TRIPOD, PROBAST and EQUATOR Network) and social media. TRIPOD-AI will provide researchers working on prediction model studies based on machine learning with a reporting guideline that can help them report key details that readers need to evaluate the study quality and interpret its findings, potentially reducing research waste. We anticipate PROBAST-AI will help researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers and policymakers critically appraise the design, conduct and analysis of machine learning based prediction model studies, with a robust standardised tool for bias evaluation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Central University Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford on 10-December-2020 (R73034/RE001). Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-review publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42019140361 and CRD42019161764.

Project description:Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed.

Dataset Information

Appraising prediction research: a guide and meta-review on bias and applicability assessment using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets