[논문]TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models

Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H; Ramspek, Chava L; Dekker, Friedo W; Heus, Pauline; Hooft, Lotty; Moons, Karel G M; Peul, Wilco C; Collins, Gary S; Steyerberg, Ewout W; van Diepen, Merel

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041537

[해외논문] TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models 원문보기

BMJ open, v.10 no.9, 2020년, pp.e041537 - e041537

Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H (Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands) , Ramspek, Chava L (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands) , Dekker, Friedo W (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands) , Heus, Pauline (Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands) , Hooft, Lotty (Dutch Cochrane Centre (DCC), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre (UMC) Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands) , Moons, Karel G M (Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, The Netherlands) , Peul, Wilco C (Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands) , Collins, Gary S (NDORMS, Oxford University, Oxford, UK) , Steyerberg, Ewout W (Department of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands) , van Diepen, Merel (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Med)

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

ObjectivesTo assess the difference in completeness of reporting and methodological conduct of published prediction models before and after publication of the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.MethodsIn the seven general medicine journals with the highest impact factor, we compared the completeness of the reporting and the quality of the methodology of prediction model studies published between 2012 and 2014 (pre-TRIPOD) with studies published between 2016 and 2017 (post-TRIPOD). For articles published in the post-TRIPOD period, we examined whether there was improved reporting for articles (1) citing the TRIPOD statement, and (2) published in journals that published the TRIPOD statement.ResultsA total of 70 articles was included (pre-TRIPOD: 32, post-TRIPOD: 38). No improvement was seen for the overall percentage of reported items after the publication of the TRIPOD statement (pre-TRIPOD 74%, post-TRIPOD 76%, 95% CI of absolute difference: −4% to 7%). For the individual TRIPOD items, an improvement was seen for 16 (44%) items, while 3 (8%) items showed no improvement and 17 (47%) items showed a deterioration. Post-TRIPOD, there was no improved reporting for articles citing the TRIPOD statement, nor for articles published in journals that published the TRIPOD statement. The methodological quality improved in the post-TRIPOD period. More models were externally validated in the same article (absolute difference 8%, post-TRIPOD: 39%), used measures of calibration (21%, post-TRIPOD: 87%) and discrimination (9%, post-TRIPOD: 100%), and used multiple imputation for handling missing data (12%, post-TRIPOD: 50%).ConclusionsSince the publication of the TRIPOD statement, some reporting and methodological aspects have improved. Prediction models are still often poorly developed and validated and many aspects remain poorly reported, hindering optimal clinical application of these models. Long-term effects of the TRIPOD statement publication should be evaluated in future studies.

Keyword

참고문헌 (51)

1 Moons KGM , Royston P , Vergouwe Y , et al Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ 2009 ; 338 : b375 . 10.1136/bmj.b375 19237405

상세보기
2 Steyerberg EW , Vickers AJ , Cook NR , et al Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures . Epidemiology 2010 ; 21 : 128 ？ 38 . 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 20010215

상세보기
3 Pencina MJ , D'Agostino RB , Demler OV Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models . Stat Med 2012 ; 31 : 101 ？ 13 . 10.1002/sim.4348 22147389

상세보기
4 Pencina MJ , Fine JP , D’Agostino RB Discrimination slope and integrated discrimination improvement-properties, relationships and impact of ca libration . Stat Med 2016 .
5 Camm AJ , Kirchhof P , GYH L , et al Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation . Eur Heart J 2010 ; 31 : 2369 ？ 429 . 20802247
6 Ravdin PM , Siminoff LA , Davis GJ , et al Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer . J Clin Oncol 2001 ; 19 : 980 ？ 91 . 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.4.980 11181660

상세보기
7 Stiell IG , Greenberg GH , McKnight RD , et al A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries . Ann Emerg Med 1992 ; 21 : 384 ？ 90 . 10.1016/S0196-0644(05)82656-3 1554175

상세보기
8 Teasdale G , Jennett B Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness . The Lancet 1974 ; 304 : 81 ？ 4 . 10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0

상세보기
9 Apgar V A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant . Anesthesia & Analgesia 1953 ; 32 : 260 ？ 7 . 10.1213/00000539-195301000-00041

상세보기
10 Wilson PW , D'Agostino RB , Levy D , et al Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories . Circulation 1998 ; 97 : 1837 ？ 47 . 10.1161/01.CIR.97.18.1837 9603539

상세보기
11 Bouwmeester W , Zuithoff NPA , Mallett S , et al Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review . PLoS Med 2012 ; 9 : e1001221 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221

상세보기
12 Mallett S , Royston P , Waters R , et al Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review . BMC Med 2010 ; 8 : 21 . 10.1186/1741-7015-8-21 20353579

상세보기
13 Collins GS , de Groot JA , Dutton S , et al External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting . BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 ; 14 : 1 ？ 11 . 10.1186/1471-2288-14-40 24383436

상세보기
14 Collins GS , Reitsma JB , Altman DG , et al Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement . BMJ 2014 ; 67 : 1142 ？ 51 .
15 Moons KGM , Altman DG , Reitsma JB , et al Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration . Ann Intern Med 2015 ; 162 : W1 ？ 73 . 10.7326/M14-0698 25560730

상세보기
16 Heus P , Damen JAAG , Pajouheshnia R , et al Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement . BMC Med 2018 ; 16 : 120 . 10.1186/s12916-018-1099-2 30021577

상세보기
17 Heus P , Damen JAAG , Pajouheshnia R , et al Uniformity in measuring adherence to reporting guidelines: the example of TRIPOD for assessing completeness of reporting of prediction model studies . BMJ Open 2019 ; 9 : e025611 : 1 ？ 6 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025611

상세보기
18 Tripod Tripod Downloads . Available: https://www.tripod-statement.org/Downloads#Checklist [Accessed 11 Feb 2020 ].
19 Collins GS , Reitsma JB , Altman DG , et al Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement . BMC Med 2015 ; 13 : 1 ？ 10 . 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z 25563062

상세보기
20 Collins GS , Omar O , Shanyinde M , et al A systematic review finds prediction models for chronic kidney disease were poorly reported and often developed using inappropriate methods . J Clin Epidemiol 2013 ; 66 : 268 ？ 77 . 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.020 23116690

상세보기
21 Collins GS , Mallett S , Omar O , et al Developing risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of methodology and reporting . BMC Med 2011 ; 9 : 1 ？ 14 . 10.1186/1741-7015-9-103 21219637

상세보기
22 Steyerberg EW Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating . New York, NY, US : Springer , 2009 .
23 Harrell FE , Lee KL , Mark DB Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors . Stat Med 1996 ; 15 : 361 ？ 87 . 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4 8668867

상세보기
24 Sun GW , Shook TL , Kay GL Inappropriate use of bivariable analysis to screen risk factors for use in multivariable analysis . J Clin Epidemiol 1996 ; 49 : 907 ？ 16 . 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00025-X 8699212

상세보기
25 Steyerberg EW , Harrell FE , Borsboom GJJM , et al Internal validation of predictive models . J Clin Epidemiol 2001 ; 54 : 774 ？ 81 . 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00341-9 11470385

상세보기
26 Moons KGM , Kengne AP , Woodward M , et al Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker . Heart 2012 ; 98 : 683 ？ 90 . 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301246 22397945

상세보기
27 Steyerberg EW , Vergouwe Y Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation . Eur Heart J 2014 ; 35 : 1925 ？ 31 . 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207 24898551

상세보기
28 Moons KGM , Kengne AP , Grobbee DE , et al Risk prediction models: II. external validation, model updating, and impact assessment . Heart 2012 ; 98 : 691 ？ 8 . 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301247 22397946

상세보기
29 Altman DG , Vergouwe Y , Royston P , et al Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model . BMJ 2009 ; 338 : b605 . 10.1136/bmj.b605 19477892

상세보기
30 von Elm E , Altman DG , Egger M , et al The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies . PLoS Med 2007 ; 4 : e296 : 1623 ？ 7 . 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 17941714

상세보기
31 Schulz KF , Altman DG , Moher D , et al Consort 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials . BMC Med 2010 ; 8 : 18 . 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 20334633

상세보기
32 Bossuyt PM , Reitsma JB , Bruns DE , et al The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration . Clin Chem 2003 ; 49 : 7 ？ 18 . 10.1373/49.1.7 12507954

상세보기
33 McShane LM , Altman DG , Sauerbrei W , et al Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK) . Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006 ; 100 : 229 ？ 35 . 10.1007/s10549-006-9242-8 16932852

상세보기
34 Moher D , Jones A , Lepage L , et al Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation . JAMA 2001 ; 285 : 1992 ？ 5 . 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 11308436

상세보기
35 Bastuji-Garin S , Sbidian E , Gaudy-Marqueste C , et al Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: interrupted time series versus before-after analysis . PLoS One 2013 ; 8 : e64733 : 2 ？ 9 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0064733 23990867

상세보기
36 Poorolajal J , Cheraghi Z , Irani AD , et al Quality of cohort studies reporting post the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement . Epidemiol Health 2011 ; 33 : e2011005 . 10.4178/epih/e2011005 21716598

상세보기
37 Sekula P , Mallett S , Altman DG , et al Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles . PLoS One 2017 ; 12 : e0178531 : 1 ？ 15 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0178531 28614415

상세보기
38 Smidt N , Rutjes AWS , van der Windt DAWM , et al The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006 ; 67 : 792 ？ 7 . 10.1212/01.wnl.0000238386.41398.30 16966539

상세보기
39 Moher D , Jones A , Lepage L , et al Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials . Jama 1992 ; 2001 : 285 .
40 Kiehna EN , Starke RM , Pouratian N , et al Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery . J Neurosurg 2011 ; 114 : 280 ？ 5 . 10.3171/2010.8.JNS091770 21054137

상세보기
41 Hemingway H , Croft P , Perel P , et al Prognosis research strategy (progress) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes . BMJ 2013 ; 346 : e5595 : 1 ？ 11 . 10.1136/bmj.e5595 23386360

상세보기
42 Moons KGM , Altman DG , Vergouwe Y , et al Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice . BMJ 2009 ; 338 : b606 . 10.1136/bmj.b606 19502216

상세보기
43 Altman DG , McShane LM , Sauerbrei W , et al Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration . PLoS Med 2012 ; 9 : e1001216 . 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001216 22675273

상세보기
44 Shameer K , Johnson KW , Glicksberg BS , et al Machine learning in cardiovascular medicine: are we there yet? Heart 2018 ; 104 : 311198 : 1156 ？ 64 . 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311198

상세보기
45 Shameer K , Johnson KW , Glicksberg BS , et al The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: combining classical statistical and machine intelligence methods in medicine . Heart 2018 ; 104 : 1228 . 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313377 29945951

상세보기
46 Collins GS , Moons KGM Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models . Lancet 2019 ; 393 : 1577 ？ 9 . 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30037-6 31007185

상세보기
47 Janssen KJM , Donders ART , Harrell FE , et al Missing covariate data in medical research: to impute is better than to ignore . J Clin Epidemiol 2010 ; 63 : 721 ？ 7 . 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.008 20338724

상세보기
48 Sterne JAC , White IR , Carlin JB , et al Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls . BMJ 2009 ; 338 : b2393 . 10.1136/bmj.b2393 19564179

상세보기
49 Donders ART , van der Heijden GJMG , Stijnen T , et al Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values . J Clin Epidemiol 2006 ; 59 : 1087 ？ 91 . 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.014 16980149

상세보기
50 Steyerberg EW , Vickers AJ , Cook NR , et al Assessing the performance of prediction models . Epidemiology 2010 ; 21 : 128 ？ 38 . 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 20010215

상세보기
51 Debray TPA , Vergouwe Y , Koffijberg H , et al A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models . J Clin Epidemiol 2015 ; 68 : 279 ？ 89 . 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.018 25179855

상세보기

활용도 분석정보

상세보기

다운로드

내보내기

활용도 Top5 논문

해당 논문의 주제분야에서 활용도가 높은 상위 5개 콘텐츠를 보여줍니다.
더보기 버튼을 클릭하시면 더 많은 관련자료를 살펴볼 수 있습니다.

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증