Cargando…

The reporting of prognostic prediction models for obstetric care was poor: a cross-sectional survey of 10-year publications

BACKGROUND: To investigate the reporting of prognostic prediction model studies in obstetric care through a cross-sectional survey design. METHODS: PubMed was searched to identify prognostic prediction model studies in obstetric care published from January 2011 to December 2020. The quality of repor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Chunrong, Qi, Yana, Liu, Xinghui, Chen, Meng, Xiong, Yiquan, Huang, Shiyao, Zou, Kang, Tan, Jing, Sun, Xin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36635634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01832-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To investigate the reporting of prognostic prediction model studies in obstetric care through a cross-sectional survey design. METHODS: PubMed was searched to identify prognostic prediction model studies in obstetric care published from January 2011 to December 2020. The quality of reporting was assessed by the TRIPOD checklist. The overall adherence by study and the adherence by item were calculated separately, and linear regression analysis was conducted to explore the association between overall adherence and prespecified study characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 121 studies were included, while no study completely adhered to the TRIPOD. The results showed that the overall adherence was poor (median 46.4%), and no significant improvement was observed after the release of the TRIPOD (43.9 to 46.7%). Studies including both model development and external validation had higher reporting quality versus those including model development only (68.1% vs. 44.8%). Among the 37 items required by the TRIPOD, 10 items were reported adequately with an adherence rate over of 80%, and the remaining 27 items had an adherence rate ranging from 2.5 to 79.3%. In addition, 11 items had a report rate lower than 25.0% and even covered key methodological aspects, including blinding assessment of predictors (2.5%), methods for model-building procedures (4.5%) and predictor handling (13.5%), how to use the model (13.5%), and presentation of model performance (14.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In a 10-year span, prognostic prediction studies in obstetric care continued to be poorly reported and did not improve even after the release of the TRIPOD checklist. Substantial efforts are warranted to improve the reporting of obstetric prognostic prediction models, particularly those that adhere to the TRIPOD checklist are highly desirable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01832-9