Cargando…
Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
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 include...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34026714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.654454 |
_version_ | 1783695686016958464 |
---|---|
author | He, Bingjie Chen, Weiye Liu, Lili Hou, Zheng Zhu, Haiyan Cheng, Haozhe Zhang, Yixi Zhan, Siyan Wang, Shengfeng |
author_facet | He, Bingjie Chen, Weiye Liu, Lili Hou, Zheng Zhu, Haiyan Cheng, Haozhe Zhang, Yixi Zhan, Siyan Wang, Shengfeng |
author_sort | He, Bingjie |
collection | PubMed |
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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8137851 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81378512021-05-22 Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal He, Bingjie Chen, Weiye Liu, Lili Hou, Zheng Zhu, Haiyan Cheng, Haozhe Zhang, Yixi Zhan, Siyan Wang, Shengfeng Front Public Health Public Health 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8137851/ /pubmed/34026714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.654454 Text en Copyright © 2021 He, Chen, Liu, Hou, Zhu, Cheng, Zhang, Zhan and Wang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Public Health He, Bingjie Chen, Weiye Liu, Lili Hou, Zheng Zhu, Haiyan Cheng, Haozhe Zhang, Yixi Zhan, Siyan Wang, Shengfeng Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal |
title | Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal |
title_full | Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal |
title_fullStr | Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal |
title_short | Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal |
title_sort | prediction models for prognosis of cervical cancer: systematic review and critical appraisal |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8137851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34026714 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.654454 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hebingjie predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT chenweiye predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT liulili predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT houzheng predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT zhuhaiyan predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT chenghaozhe predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT zhangyixi predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT zhansiyan predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT wangshengfeng predictionmodelsforprognosisofcervicalcancersystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal |