Cargando…
Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) prediction models by assessing characteristics of these models. METHODS: The development and/or validation of IPF prognostic models were identified via an electronic search of P...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188804/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35702399 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S357606 |
_version_ | 1784725457151721472 |
---|---|
author | Di, Jiaqi Li, Xuanlin Yang, Jingjing Li, Luguang Yu, Xueqing |
author_facet | Di, Jiaqi Li, Xuanlin Yang, Jingjing Li, Luguang Yu, Xueqing |
author_sort | Di, Jiaqi |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) prediction models by assessing characteristics of these models. METHODS: The development and/or validation of IPF prognostic models were identified via an electronic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (from inception to 12 August, 2021). Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of IPF prediction models based on the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prognostic model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist. RESULTS: Twenty prognostic model studies for IPF were included, including 7 (35%) model development and external validation studies, 8 (40%) development studies, and 5 (25%) external validation studies. According to PROBAST, all studies were appraised with high ROB, because of deficient reporting in the domains of participants (45.0%) and analysis (67.3%), and at least 55% studies were susceptible to 4 of 20 sources of bias. For the reporting quality, none of them completely adhered to the TRIPOD checklist, with the lowest mean reporting score for the methods and results domains (46.6% and 44.7%). For specific items, eight sub-items had a reporting rate ≥80% and adhered to the TRIPOD checklist, and nine sub-items had a very poor reporting rate, less than 30%. CONCLUSION: Studies adhering to PROBAST and TRIPOD checklists are recommended in the future. The reproducibility and transparency can be improved when studies completely adhere to PROBAST and TRIPOD checklists. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9188804 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91888042022-06-13 Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study Di, Jiaqi Li, Xuanlin Yang, Jingjing Li, Luguang Yu, Xueqing Risk Manag Healthc Policy Review OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) prediction models by assessing characteristics of these models. METHODS: The development and/or validation of IPF prognostic models were identified via an electronic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (from inception to 12 August, 2021). Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of IPF prediction models based on the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prognostic model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist. RESULTS: Twenty prognostic model studies for IPF were included, including 7 (35%) model development and external validation studies, 8 (40%) development studies, and 5 (25%) external validation studies. According to PROBAST, all studies were appraised with high ROB, because of deficient reporting in the domains of participants (45.0%) and analysis (67.3%), and at least 55% studies were susceptible to 4 of 20 sources of bias. For the reporting quality, none of them completely adhered to the TRIPOD checklist, with the lowest mean reporting score for the methods and results domains (46.6% and 44.7%). For specific items, eight sub-items had a reporting rate ≥80% and adhered to the TRIPOD checklist, and nine sub-items had a very poor reporting rate, less than 30%. CONCLUSION: Studies adhering to PROBAST and TRIPOD checklists are recommended in the future. The reproducibility and transparency can be improved when studies completely adhere to PROBAST and TRIPOD checklists. Dove 2022-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9188804/ /pubmed/35702399 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S357606 Text en © 2022 Di et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Review Di, Jiaqi Li, Xuanlin Yang, Jingjing Li, Luguang Yu, Xueqing Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study |
title | Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study |
title_full | Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study |
title_fullStr | Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study |
title_short | Bias and Reporting Quality of Clinical Prognostic Models for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study |
title_sort | bias and reporting quality of clinical prognostic models for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a cross-sectional study |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188804/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35702399 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S357606 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dijiaqi biasandreportingqualityofclinicalprognosticmodelsforidiopathicpulmonaryfibrosisacrosssectionalstudy AT lixuanlin biasandreportingqualityofclinicalprognosticmodelsforidiopathicpulmonaryfibrosisacrosssectionalstudy AT yangjingjing biasandreportingqualityofclinicalprognosticmodelsforidiopathicpulmonaryfibrosisacrosssectionalstudy AT liluguang biasandreportingqualityofclinicalprognosticmodelsforidiopathicpulmonaryfibrosisacrosssectionalstudy AT yuxueqing biasandreportingqualityofclinicalprognosticmodelsforidiopathicpulmonaryfibrosisacrosssectionalstudy |