The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis

The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis

Abstract Background To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis. Methods Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peijing Yan, Zhengxing Xu, Xu Hui, Xiajing Chu, Yizhuo Chen, Chao Yang, Shixi Xu, Huijie Cui, Li Zhang, Wenqiang Zhang, Liqun Wang, Yanqiu Zou, Yan Ren, Jiaqiang Liao, Qin Zhang, Kehu Yang, Ling Zhang, Yunjie Liu, Jiayuan Li, Chunxia Yang, Yuqin Yao, Zhenmi Liu, Xia Jiang, Ben Zhang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-03-01
Series:BMC Medical Research Methodology
Subjects:
Cancer prognosis
Dynamic prediction models
Reporting quality
Methodological quality
Methodological characteristics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02516-2
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis. Methods Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were used to assess reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively. Results A total of 34 DPM studies were identified since the first publication in 2005, the main modeling methods for DPMs included the landmark model and the joint model. Regarding the reporting quality, the median overall TRIPOD adherence score was 75%. The TRIPOD items were poorly reported, especially the title (23.53%), model specification, including presentation (55.88%) and interpretation (50%) of the DPM usage, and implications for clinical use and future research (29.41%). Concerning methodological quality, most studies were of low quality (n = 30) or unclear (n = 3), mainly due to statistical analysis issues. Conclusions The Landmark model and joint model show potential in DPM. The suboptimal reporting and methodological qualities of current DPM studies should be improved to facilitate clinical application.
ISSN:1471-2288

Similar Items