Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal
<p><strong>Objective:</strong> To review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the gen...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ
2020
|
| _version_ | 1797106418924388352 |
|---|---|
| author | Wynants, L Van Calster, B Bonten, MMJ Collins, GS Debray, TBA De Vos, M C Haller, M Heinze, G Moons, KGM Riley, RD Schuit, E Smits, LJM Snell, KIE Steyerberg, EW Wallisch, C van Smeden, M |
| author_facet | Wynants, L Van Calster, B Bonten, MMJ Collins, GS Debray, TBA De Vos, M C Haller, M Heinze, G Moons, KGM Riley, RD Schuit, E Smits, LJM Snell, KIE Steyerberg, EW Wallisch, C van Smeden, M |
| author_sort | Wynants, L |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p><strong>Objective:</strong> To review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at risk of being admitted to hospital for covid-19 pneumonia.</p>
<p><strong>Design:</strong> Rapid systematic review and critical appraisal.</p>
<p><strong>Data sources:</strong> PubMed and Embase through Ovid, Arxiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 24 March 2020.</p>
<p><strong>Study selection:</strong> Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.</p>
<p><strong>Data extraction:</strong> At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).</p>
<p><strong>Results:</strong> 2696 titles were screened, and 27 studies describing 31 prediction models were included. Three models were identified for predicting hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as proxy outcomes for covid-19 pneumonia) in the general population; 18 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 infection (13 were machine learning based on computed tomography scans); and 10 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, or length of hospital stay. Only one study used patient data from outside of China. The most reported predictors of presence of covid-19 in patients with suspected disease included age, body temperature, and signs and symptoms. The most reported predictors of severe prognosis in patients with covid-19 included age, sex, features derived from computed tomography scans, C reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count. C index estimates ranged from 0.73 to 0.81 in prediction models for the general population (reported for all three models), from 0.81 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models (reported for 13 of the 18 models), and from 0.85 to 0.98 in prognostic models (reported for six of the 10 models). All studies were rated at high risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, and high risk of model overfitting. Reporting quality varied substantially between studies. Most reports did not include a description of the study population or intended use of the models, and calibration of predictions was rarely assessed.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that proposed models are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic. Immediate sharing of well documented individual participant data from covid-19 studies is needed for collaborative efforts to develop more rigorous prediction models and validate existing ones. The predictors identified in included studies could be considered as candidate predictors for new models. Methodological guidance should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, studies should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:02:10Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:ffdcdf18-f55b-47d5-ad74-7ce9b78ac69f |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:02:10Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | BMJ |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:ffdcdf18-f55b-47d5-ad74-7ce9b78ac69f2022-03-27T13:48:20ZPrediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisalJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:ffdcdf18-f55b-47d5-ad74-7ce9b78ac69fEnglishSymplectic ElementsBMJ2020Wynants, LVan Calster, BBonten, MMJCollins, GSDebray, TBADe Vos, MC Haller, MHeinze, GMoons, KGMRiley, RDSchuit, ESmits, LJMSnell, KIESteyerberg, EWWallisch, Cvan Smeden, M<p><strong>Objective:</strong> To review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at risk of being admitted to hospital for covid-19 pneumonia.</p> <p><strong>Design:</strong> Rapid systematic review and critical appraisal.</p> <p><strong>Data sources:</strong> PubMed and Embase through Ovid, Arxiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 24 March 2020.</p> <p><strong>Study selection:</strong> Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.</p> <p><strong>Data extraction:</strong> At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> 2696 titles were screened, and 27 studies describing 31 prediction models were included. Three models were identified for predicting hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as proxy outcomes for covid-19 pneumonia) in the general population; 18 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 infection (13 were machine learning based on computed tomography scans); and 10 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, or length of hospital stay. Only one study used patient data from outside of China. The most reported predictors of presence of covid-19 in patients with suspected disease included age, body temperature, and signs and symptoms. The most reported predictors of severe prognosis in patients with covid-19 included age, sex, features derived from computed tomography scans, C reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count. C index estimates ranged from 0.73 to 0.81 in prediction models for the general population (reported for all three models), from 0.81 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models (reported for 13 of the 18 models), and from 0.85 to 0.98 in prognostic models (reported for six of the 10 models). All studies were rated at high risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, and high risk of model overfitting. Reporting quality varied substantially between studies. Most reports did not include a description of the study population or intended use of the models, and calibration of predictions was rarely assessed.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that proposed models are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic. Immediate sharing of well documented individual participant data from covid-19 studies is needed for collaborative efforts to develop more rigorous prediction models and validate existing ones. The predictors identified in included studies could be considered as candidate predictors for new models. Methodological guidance should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, studies should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Wynants, L Van Calster, B Bonten, MMJ Collins, GS Debray, TBA De Vos, M C Haller, M Heinze, G Moons, KGM Riley, RD Schuit, E Smits, LJM Snell, KIE Steyerberg, EW Wallisch, C van Smeden, M Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal |
| title | Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal |
| title_full | Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal |
| title_fullStr | Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal |
| title_full_unstemmed | Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal |
| title_short | Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal |
| title_sort | prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid 19 infection systematic review and critical appraisal |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT wynantsl predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT vancalsterb predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT bontenmmj predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT collinsgs predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT debraytba predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT devosm predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT challerm predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT heinzeg predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT moonskgm predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT rileyrd predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT schuite predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT smitsljm predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT snellkie predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT steyerbergew predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT wallischc predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal AT vansmedenm predictionmodelsfordiagnosisandprognosisofcovid19infectionsystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal |