A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes

A framework for meta-analysis of prediction model studies with binary and time-to-event outcomes

It is widely recommended that any developed—diagnostic or prognostic—prediction model is externally validated in terms of its predictive performance measured by calibration and discrimination. When multiple validations have been performed, a systematic review followed by a formal meta-analysis helps...

Bibliografske podrobnosti
Main Authors:	Debray, T, Damen, J, Riley, R, Snell, K, Reitsma, J, Hooft, L, Collins, G, Moons, K
Format:	Journal article
Jezik:	English
Izdano:	SAGE Publications 2018

Podobne knjige/članki

Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: PART II ‐ binary and time‐to‐event outcomes
od: Riley, R, et al.
Izdano: (2018)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA)
od: Snell, KIE, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies
od: Riley, R, et al.
Izdano: (2019)

External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges
od: Riley, R, et al.
Izdano: (2016)

Minimum sample size for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a binary outcome
od: Riley, RD, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Sample size for binary logistic prediction models: Beyond events per variable criteria
od: Van Smeden, M, et al.
Izdano: (2018)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data: TRIPOD-Cluster checklist
od: Debray, TPA, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaboration
od: Debray, TPA, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed
od: Levis, B, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis.
od: van Smeden, M, et al.
Izdano: (2016)

Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
od: Johanna A. Damen, et al.
Izdano: (2019-06-01)

Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement
od: Heus, P, et al.
Izdano: (2018)

Uniformity in measuring adherence to reporting guidelines: the example of TRIPOD for assessing completeness of reporting of prediction model studies
od: Heus, P, et al.
Izdano: (2019)

Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models in journal and conference abstracts: TRIPOD for abstracts
od: Heus, P, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: Part I – Continuous outcomes
od: Riley, R, et al.
Izdano: (2018)

Explicit inclusion of treatment in prognostic modelling was recommended in observational and randomised settings
od: Groenwold, R, et al.
Izdano: (2016)

No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis
od: Maarten van Smeden, et al.
Izdano: (2016-11-01)

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement.
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement.
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2014)

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : the TRIPOD statement
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : the TRIPOD statement
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement.
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement.
od: Collins, G, et al.
Izdano: (2015)

Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model
od: Riley, RD, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Minimum sample size calculations for external validation of a clinical prediction model with a time-to-event outcome
od: Riley, RD, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration
od: Moons, K, et al.
Izdano: (2019)

Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2022)

Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Protocol for a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of prediction model studies using machine learning techniques
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2020)

Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement
od: Pauline Heus, et al.
Izdano: (2018-07-01)

Reporting of prognostic clinical prediction models based on machine learning methods in oncology needs to be improved
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

External validation of clinical prediction models: simulation-based sample size calculations were more reliable than rules-of-thumb
od: Snell, KIE, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Calculating the power of a planned individual participant data meta‐analysis to examine prognostic factor effects for a binary outcome
od: Whittle, R, et al.
Izdano: (2024)

Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review
od: Dhiman, P, et al.
Izdano: (2023)

Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome
od: Riley, RD, et al.
Izdano: (2022)

Continual updating and monitoring of clinical prediction models: time for dynamic prediction systems?
od: Jenkins, DA, et al.
Izdano: (2021)

Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models
od: Andaur Navarro, CL, et al.
Izdano: (2022)