Cargando…

Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are often not evaluated properly in specific settings or updated, for instance, with information from new markers. These key steps are needed such that models are fit for purpose and remain relevant in the long-term. We aimed to present an overview of methodolo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Binuya, M. A. E., Engelhardt, E. G., Schats, W., Schmidt, M. K., Steyerberg, E. W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9742671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8
_version_ 1784848576131629056
author Binuya, M. A. E.
Engelhardt, E. G.
Schats, W.
Schmidt, M. K.
Steyerberg, E. W.
author_facet Binuya, M. A. E.
Engelhardt, E. G.
Schats, W.
Schmidt, M. K.
Steyerberg, E. W.
author_sort Binuya, M. A. E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are often not evaluated properly in specific settings or updated, for instance, with information from new markers. These key steps are needed such that models are fit for purpose and remain relevant in the long-term. We aimed to present an overview of methodological guidance for the evaluation (i.e., validation and impact assessment) and updating of clinical prediction models. METHODS: We systematically searched nine databases from January 2000 to January 2022 for articles in English with methodological recommendations for the post-derivation stages of interest. Qualitative analysis was used to summarize the 70 selected guidance papers. RESULTS: Key aspects for validation are the assessment of statistical performance using measures for discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) and calibration (e.g., calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope). For assessing impact or usefulness in clinical decision-making, recent papers advise using decision-analytic measures (e.g., the Net Benefit) over simplistic classification measures that ignore clinical consequences (e.g., accuracy, overall Net Reclassification Index). Commonly recommended methods for model updating are recalibration (i.e., adjustment of intercept or baseline hazard and/or slope), revision (i.e., re-estimation of individual predictor effects), and extension (i.e., addition of new markers). Additional methodological guidance is needed for newer types of updating (e.g., meta-model and dynamic updating) and machine learning-based models. CONCLUSION: Substantial guidance was found for model evaluation and more conventional updating of regression-based models. An important development in model evaluation is the introduction of a decision-analytic framework for assessing clinical usefulness. Consensus is emerging on methods for model updating. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9742671
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97426712022-12-12 Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review Binuya, M. A. E. Engelhardt, E. G. Schats, W. Schmidt, M. K. Steyerberg, E. W. BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are often not evaluated properly in specific settings or updated, for instance, with information from new markers. These key steps are needed such that models are fit for purpose and remain relevant in the long-term. We aimed to present an overview of methodological guidance for the evaluation (i.e., validation and impact assessment) and updating of clinical prediction models. METHODS: We systematically searched nine databases from January 2000 to January 2022 for articles in English with methodological recommendations for the post-derivation stages of interest. Qualitative analysis was used to summarize the 70 selected guidance papers. RESULTS: Key aspects for validation are the assessment of statistical performance using measures for discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) and calibration (e.g., calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope). For assessing impact or usefulness in clinical decision-making, recent papers advise using decision-analytic measures (e.g., the Net Benefit) over simplistic classification measures that ignore clinical consequences (e.g., accuracy, overall Net Reclassification Index). Commonly recommended methods for model updating are recalibration (i.e., adjustment of intercept or baseline hazard and/or slope), revision (i.e., re-estimation of individual predictor effects), and extension (i.e., addition of new markers). Additional methodological guidance is needed for newer types of updating (e.g., meta-model and dynamic updating) and machine learning-based models. CONCLUSION: Substantial guidance was found for model evaluation and more conventional updating of regression-based models. An important development in model evaluation is the introduction of a decision-analytic framework for assessing clinical usefulness. Consensus is emerging on methods for model updating. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8. BioMed Central 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9742671/ /pubmed/36510134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Binuya, M. A. E.
Engelhardt, E. G.
Schats, W.
Schmidt, M. K.
Steyerberg, E. W.
Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
title Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
title_full Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
title_fullStr Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
title_short Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
title_sort methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9742671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8
work_keys_str_mv AT binuyamae methodologicalguidancefortheevaluationandupdatingofclinicalpredictionmodelsasystematicreview
AT engelhardteg methodologicalguidancefortheevaluationandupdatingofclinicalpredictionmodelsasystematicreview
AT schatsw methodologicalguidancefortheevaluationandupdatingofclinicalpredictionmodelsasystematicreview
AT schmidtmk methodologicalguidancefortheevaluationandupdatingofclinicalpredictionmodelsasystematicreview
AT steyerbergew methodologicalguidancefortheevaluationandupdatingofclinicalpredictionmodelsasystematicreview