1
|
Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Beam AL, Van Calster B, Ghassemi M, Liu X, Reitsma JB, van Smeden M, Boulesteix AL, Camaradou JC, Celi LA, Denaxas S, Denniston AK, Glocker B, Golub RM, Harvey H, Heinze G, Hoffman MM, Kengne AP, Lam E, Lee N, Loder EW, Maier-Hein L, Mateen BA, McCradden MD, Oakden-Rayner L, Ordish J, Parnell R, Rose S, Singh K, Wynants L, Logullo P. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ 2024; 385:e078378. [PMID: 38626948 PMCID: PMC11019967 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/17/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, UK EQUATOR Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, UK EQUATOR Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Andrew L Beam
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Marzyeh Ghassemi
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Xiaoxuan Liu
- Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Anne-Laure Boulesteix
- Department of Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jennifer Catherine Camaradou
- Patient representative, Health Data Research UK patient and public involvement and engagement group
- Patient representative, University of East Anglia, Faculty of Health Sciences, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK
| | - Leo Anthony Celi
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
- Laboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Spiros Denaxas
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
- British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, London, UK
| | - Alastair K Denniston
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
- Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ben Glocker
- Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Robert M Golub
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Georg Heinze
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Michael M Hoffman
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Emily Lam
- Patient representative, Health Data Research UK patient and public involvement and engagement group
| | - Naomi Lee
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth W Loder
- The BMJ, London, UK
- Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Lena Maier-Hein
- Department of Intelligent Medical Systems, German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Bilal A Mateen
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
- Wellcome Trust, London, UK
- Alan Turing Institute, London, UK
| | - Melissa D McCradden
- Department of Bioethics, Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, ON, Canada
- Genetics and Genome Biology, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Lauren Oakden-Rayner
- Australian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Johan Ordish
- Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, London, UK
| | - Richard Parnell
- Patient representative, Health Data Research UK patient and public involvement and engagement group
| | - Sherri Rose
- Department of Health Policy and Center for Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Karandeep Singh
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Laure Wynants
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Patricia Logullo
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, UK EQUATOR Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JA, Ghannad M, Dhiman P, van Smeden M, Reitsma JB, Collins GS, Riley RD, Moons KG, Hooft L. SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2024:111364. [PMID: 38631529 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2023] [Revised: 04/01/2024] [Accepted: 04/08/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model, regardless of the modelling technique. STUDY DESIGN We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) pre-meeting literature review to generate items to be included; (2) a series of structured meetings to provide comments, discussed and exchanged viewpoints on items to be included with a panel of experienced researchers; and (3) post-meeting review on final list of items and examples to be included. Through this iterative consensus process, a framework was derived after all panel's researchers agreed. RESULTS This consensus process involved a panel of eight researchers and resulted in SPIN-PM which consists of two categories of spin (misleading interpretation and misleading transportability), and within these categories, two forms of spin (spin practices and facilitators of spin). We provide criteria and examples. CONCLUSION We proposed this guidance aiming to facilitate not only the accurate reporting but also an accurate interpretation and extrapolation of clinical prediction models which will likely improve the reporting quality of subsequent research, as well as reduce research waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Johanna Aa Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Mona Ghannad
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Karel Gm Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Foroutan F, Mayer M, Guyatt G, Riley RD, Mustafa R, Kreuzberger N, Skoetz N, Darzi A, Alba AC, Mowbray F, Rayner DG, Schunemann H, Iorio A. GRADE concept paper 8: judging the certainty of discrimination performance estimates of prognostic models in a body of validation studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 170:111344. [PMID: 38579978 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2023] [Revised: 03/17/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prognostic models incorporate multiple prognostic factors to estimate the likelihood of future events for individual patients based on their prognostic factor values. Evaluating these models crucially involves conducting studies to assess their predictive performance, like discrimination. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these validation studies play an essential role in selecting models for clinical practice. METHODS In this paper, we outline 3 thresholds to determine the target for certainty rating in the discrimination of prognostic models, as observed across a body of validation studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION We propose 3 thresholds when rating the certainty of evidence about a prognostic model's discrimination. The first threshold amounts to rating certainty in the model's ability to classify better than random chance. The other 2 approaches involve setting thresholds informed by other mechanisms for classification: clinician intuition or an alternative prognostic model developed for the same disease area and outcome. The choice of threshold will vary based on the context. Instead of relying on arbitrary discrimination cut-offs, our approach positions the observed discrimination within an informed spectrum, potentially aiding decisions about a prognostic model's practical utility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Farid Foroutan
- Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Martin Mayer
- DynaMed Decisions, EBSCO Clinical Decisions, EBSCO, Ipswich, MA, USA; Open Door Clinic, Cone Health, Greensboro, NC, USA
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Richard D Riley
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, England, UK; Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Reem Mustafa
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Andrea Darzi
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ana Carolina Alba
- Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Fabrice Mowbray
- College of Nursing, Michigan State University, Kansas City, MI, USA
| | - Daniel G Rayner
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger Schunemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alfonso Iorio
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wang X, Li Y, Shi T, Bont LJ, Chu HY, Zar HJ, Wahi-Singh B, Ma Y, Cong B, Sharland E, Riley RD, Deng J, Figueras-Aloy J, Heikkinen T, Jones MH, Liese JG, Markić J, Mejias A, Nunes MC, Resch B, Satav A, Yeo KT, Simões EAF, Nair H. Global disease burden of and risk factors for acute lower respiratory infections caused by respiratory syncytial virus in preterm infants and young children in 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregated and individual participant data. Lancet 2024; 403:1241-1253. [PMID: 38367641 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(24)00138-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 02/19/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infants and young children born prematurely are at high risk of severe acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). In this study, we aimed to assess the global disease burden of and risk factors for RSV-associated ALRI in infants and young children born before 37 weeks of gestation. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregated data from studies published between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2021, identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health, and individual participant data shared by the Respiratory Virus Global Epidemiology Network on respiratory infectious diseases. We estimated RSV-associated ALRI incidence in community, hospital admission, in-hospital mortality, and overall mortality among children younger than 2 years born prematurely. We conducted two-stage random-effects meta-regression analyses accounting for chronological age groups, gestational age bands (early preterm, <32 weeks gestational age [wGA], and late preterm, 32 to <37 wGA), and changes over 5-year intervals from 2000 to 2019. Using individual participant data, we assessed perinatal, sociodemographic, and household factors, and underlying medical conditions for RSV-associated ALRI incidence, hospital admission, and three severity outcome groups (longer hospital stay [>4 days], use of supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission) by estimating pooled odds ratios (ORs) through a two-stage meta-analysis (multivariate logistic regression and random-effects meta-analysis). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021269742. FINDINGS We included 47 studies from the literature and 17 studies with individual participant-level data contributed by the participating investigators. We estimated that, in 2019, 1 650 000 (95% uncertainty range [UR] 1 350 000-1 990 000) RSV-associated ALRI episodes, 533 000 (385 000-730 000) RSV-associated hospital admissions, 3050 (1080-8620) RSV-associated in-hospital deaths, and 26 760 (11 190-46 240) RSV-attributable deaths occurred in preterm infants worldwide. Among early preterm infants, the RSV-associated ALRI incidence rate and hospitalisation rate were significantly higher (rate ratio [RR] ranging from 1·69 to 3·87 across different age groups and outcomes) than for all infants born at any gestational age. In the second year of life, early preterm infants and young children had a similar incidence rate but still a significantly higher hospitalisation rate (RR 2·26 [95% UR 1·27-3·98]) compared with all infants and young children. Although late preterm infants had RSV-associated ALRI incidence rates similar to that of all infants younger than 1 year, they had higher RSV-associated ALRI hospitalisation rate in the first 6 months (RR 1·93 [1·11-3·26]). Overall, preterm infants accounted for 25% (95% UR 16-37) of RSV-associated ALRI hospitalisations in all infants of any gestational age. RSV-associated ALRI in-hospital case fatality ratio in preterm infants was similar to all infants. The factors identified to be associated with RSV-associated ALRI incidence were mainly perinatal and sociodemographic characteristics, and factors associated with severe outcomes from infection were mainly underlying medical conditions including congenital heart disease, tracheostomy, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, chronic lung disease, or Down syndrome (with ORs ranging from 1·40 to 4·23). INTERPRETATION Preterm infants face a disproportionately high burden of RSV-associated disease, accounting for 25% of RSV hospitalisation burden. Early preterm infants have a substantial RSV hospitalisation burden persisting into the second year of life. Preventive products for RSV can have a substantial public health impact by preventing RSV-associated ALRI and severe outcomes from infection in preterm infants. FUNDING EU Innovative Medicines Initiative Respiratory Syncytial Virus Consortium in Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Wang
- National Vaccine Innovation Platform, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China; Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - You Li
- National Vaccine Innovation Platform, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China; Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Ting Shi
- Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Louis J Bont
- Department of Paediatrics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; ReSViNET Foundation, Zeist, Netherlands
| | - Helen Y Chu
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Heather J Zar
- Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa; South African Medical Research Council Unit on Child and Adolescent Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Bhanu Wahi-Singh
- Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Yiming Ma
- Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Bingbing Cong
- National Vaccine Innovation Platform, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Emma Sharland
- Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Jikui Deng
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Shenzhen Children's Hospital, Shenzhen, China
| | | | - Terho Heikkinen
- Department of Pediatrics, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland; Department of Pediatrics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - Marcus H Jones
- Department of Pediatrics, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Johannes G Liese
- Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Joško Markić
- Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia; School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia
| | - Asuncion Mejias
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; Department of Infectious Diseases, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Marta C Nunes
- South African Medical Research Council, Wits Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit and Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation, South African Research Chair Initiative in Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Center of Excellence in Respiratory Pathogens, Hospices Civils de Lyon, and Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Inserm U1111, CNRS UMR5308, ENS de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Bernhard Resch
- Research Unit for Neonatal Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria; Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Ashish Satav
- MAHAN Trust Mahatma Gandhi Tribal Hospital, District Amaravati, Maharashtra, India
| | - Kee Thai Yeo
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Neonatology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore; Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
| | - Eric A F Simões
- Department of Pediatrics, Section of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Center for Global Health, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Harish Nair
- National Vaccine Innovation Platform, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China; Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Crocker TF, Ensor J, Lam N, Jordão M, Bajpai R, Bond M, Forster A, Riley RD, Andre D, Brundle C, Ellwood A, Green J, Hale M, Mirza L, Morgan J, Patel I, Patetsini E, Prescott M, Ramiz R, Todd O, Walford R, Gladman J, Clegg A. Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2024; 384:e077764. [PMID: 38514079 PMCID: PMC10955723 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077764] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42019162195.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas F Crocker
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Natalie Lam
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Magda Jordão
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Ram Bajpai
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Matthew Bond
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Anne Forster
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Deirdre Andre
- Research Support Team, Leeds University Library, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Caroline Brundle
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Alison Ellwood
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - John Green
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Matthew Hale
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Lubena Mirza
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Jessica Morgan
- Geriatric Medicine, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Ismail Patel
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Eleftheria Patetsini
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Matthew Prescott
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Ridha Ramiz
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Oliver Todd
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Rebecca Walford
- Geriatric Medicine, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - John Gladman
- Centre for Rehabilitation and Ageing Research, Academic Unit of Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Health Care of Older People, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Andrew Clegg
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abhishek A, Stevenson MD, Nakafero G, Grainge MJ, Evans I, Alabas O, Card T, Taal MW, Aithal GP, Fox CP, Mallen CD, van der Windt DA, Riley RD, Warren RB, Williams HC. Discontinuation of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha treatment owing to blood test abnormalities, and cost-effectiveness of alternate blood monitoring strategies. Br J Dermatol 2024; 190:559-564. [PMID: 37931161 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2023] [Revised: 10/23/2023] [Accepted: 10/29/2023] [Indexed: 11/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no evidence base to support the use of 6-monthly monitoring blood tests for the early detection of liver, blood and renal toxicity during established anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) treatment. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of anti-TNFα treatment cessation owing to liver, blood and renal side-effects, and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternate intervals between monitoring blood tests. METHODS A secondary care-based retrospective cohort study was performed. Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were used. Patients with at least moderate psoriasis prescribed their first anti-TNFα treatment were included. Treatment discontinuation due to a monitoring blood test abnormality was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up from start of treatment to the outcome of interest, drug discontinuation, death, 31 July 2021 or up to 5 years, whichever came first. The incidence rate (IR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of anti-TNFα discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality was calculated. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between risk factors and outcome. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with increasing the length of time between monitoring blood tests during anti-TNFα treatment. RESULTS The cohort included 8819 participants [3710 (42.1%) female, mean (SD) age 44.76 (13.20) years] that contributed 25 058 person-years (PY) of follow-up and experienced 125 treatment discontinuations owing to a monitoring blood test abnormality at an IR of 5.85 (95% CI 4.91-6.97)/1000 PY. Of these, 64 and 61 discontinuations occurred within the first year and after the first year of treatment start, at IRs of 8.62 (95% CI 6.74-11.01) and 3.44 (95% CI 2.67-4.42)/1000 PY, respectively. Increasing age (in years), diabetes and liver disease were associated with anti-TNFα discontinuation after a monitoring blood test abnormality [adjusted hazard ratios of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.04), 1.68 (95% CI 1.00-2.81) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.26-4.07), respectively]. Assuming a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, no monitoring was most cost-effective, but all extended periods were cost-effective vs. 3- or 6-monthly monitoring. CONCLUSIONS Anti-TNFα drugs were uncommonly discontinued owing to abnormal monitoring blood tests after the first year of treatment. Extending the duration between monitoring blood tests was cost-effective. Our results produce evidence for specialist society guidance to reduce patient monitoring burden and healthcare costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Matthew D Stevenson
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | - Ian Evans
- BADBIR, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Oras Alabas
- BADBIR, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Maarten W Taal
- Centre for Kidney Research and Innovation, Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK
| | - Guruprasad P Aithal
- Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christopher P Fox
- Centre for Cancer Studies, Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK
| | | | | | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Richard B Warren
- Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bullock GS, Ward P, Kluzek S, Hughes T, Shanley E, Arundale AJH, Ranson C, Nimphius S, Riley RD, Collins GS, Impellizzeri FM. Paving the way for greater open science in sports and exercise medicine: navigating the barriers to adopting open and accessible data practices. Br J Sports Med 2024; 58:293-295. [PMID: 38135463 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-107225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Garrett S Bullock
- Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
- Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Stefan Kluzek
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Tom Hughes
- Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
| | - Ellen Shanley
- Clinical Excellence, ATI Physical Therapy, Greer, South Carolina, USA
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina System, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
| | | | | | - Sophia Nimphius
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Franco M Impellizzeri
- School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Archer L, Relton SD, Akbari A, Best K, Bucknall M, Conroy S, Hattle M, Hollinghurst J, Humphrey S, Lyons RA, Richards S, Walters K, West R, van der Windt D, Riley RD, Clegg A. Development and external validation of the eFalls tool: a multivariable prediction model for the risk of ED attendance or hospitalisation with a fall or fracture in older adults. Age Ageing 2024; 53:afae057. [PMID: 38520142 PMCID: PMC10960070 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afae057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 03/25/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Falls are common in older adults and can devastate personal independence through injury such as fracture and fear of future falls. Methods to identify people for falls prevention interventions are currently limited, with high risks of bias in published prediction models. We have developed and externally validated the eFalls prediction model using routinely collected primary care electronic health records (EHR) to predict risk of emergency department attendance/hospitalisation with fall or fracture within 1 year. METHODS Data comprised two independent, retrospective cohorts of adults aged ≥65 years: the population of Wales, from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (model development); the population of Bradford and Airedale, England, from Connected Bradford (external validation). Predictors included electronic frailty index components, supplemented with variables informed by literature reviews and clinical expertise. Fall/fracture risk was modelled using multivariable logistic regression with a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator penalty. Predictive performance was assessed through calibration, discrimination and clinical utility. Apparent, internal-external cross-validation and external validation performance were assessed across general practices and in clinically relevant subgroups. RESULTS The model's discrimination performance (c-statistic) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68 to 0.76) on internal-external cross-validation and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.83) on external validation. Calibration was variable across practices, with some over-prediction in the validation population (calibration-in-the-large, -0.87; 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.78). Clinical utility on external validation was improved after recalibration. CONCLUSION The eFalls prediction model shows good performance and could support proactive stratification for falls prevention services if appropriately embedded into primary care EHR systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucinda Archer
- Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Samuel D Relton
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ashley Akbari
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Kate Best
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, University of Leeds, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | | | - Simon Conroy
- Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Miriam Hattle
- Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Joe Hollinghurst
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Sara Humphrey
- Bradford District and Craven Health and Care Partnership, Bradford, UK
| | - Ronan A Lyons
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Suzanne Richards
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Kate Walters
- Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Robert West
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Richard D Riley
- Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Andrew Clegg
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, University of Leeds, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wambua S, Singh M, Okoth K, Snell KIE, Riley RD, Yau C, Thangaratinam S, Nirantharakumar K, Crowe FL. Association between pregnancy-related complications and development of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in women: an umbrella review. BMC Med 2024; 22:66. [PMID: 38355631 PMCID: PMC10865714 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03284-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite many systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the associations of pregnancy complications with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension, previous umbrella reviews have only examined a single pregnancy complication. Here we have synthesised evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the associations of a wide range of pregnancy-related complications with risk of developing T2DM and hypertension. METHODS Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception until 26 September 2022 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis examining the association between pregnancy complications and risk of T2DM and hypertension. Screening of articles, data extraction and quality appraisal (AMSTAR2) were conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence software. Data were extracted for studies that examined the risk of T2DM and hypertension in pregnant women with the pregnancy complication compared to pregnant women without the pregnancy complication. Summary estimates of each review were presented using tables, forest plots and narrative synthesis and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) guidelines. RESULTS Ten systematic reviews were included. Two pregnancy complications were identified. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM): One review showed GDM was associated with a 10-fold higher risk of T2DM at least 1 year after pregnancy (relative risk (RR) 9.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.14 to 12.67) and although the association differed by ethnicity (white: RR 16.28 (95% CI 15.01 to 17.66), non-white: RR 10.38 (95% CI 4.61 to 23.39), mixed: RR 8.31 (95% CI 5.44 to 12.69)), the between subgroups difference were not statistically significant at 5% significance level. Another review showed GDM was associated with higher mean blood pressure at least 3 months postpartum (mean difference in systolic blood pressure: 2.57 (95% CI 1.74 to 3.40) mmHg and mean difference in diastolic blood pressure: 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.46) mmHg). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP): Three reviews showed women with a history of HDP were 3 to 6 times more likely to develop hypertension at least 6 weeks after pregnancy compared to women without HDP (meta-analysis with largest number of studies: odds ratio (OR) 4.33 (3.51 to 5.33)) and one review reported a higher rate of T2DM after HDP (hazard ratio (HR) 2.24 (1.95 to 2.58)) at least a year after pregnancy. One of the three reviews and five other reviews reported women with a history of preeclampsia were 3 to 7 times more likely to develop hypertension at least 6 weeks postpartum (meta-analysis with the largest number of studies: OR 3.90 (3.16 to 4.82) with one of these reviews reporting the association was greatest in women from Asia (Asia: OR 7.54 (95% CI 2.49 to 22.81), Europe: OR 2.19 (95% CI 0.30 to 16.02), North and South America: OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.26 to 8.74)). CONCLUSIONS GDM and HDP are associated with a greater risk of developing T2DM and hypertension. Common confounders adjusted for across the included studies in the reviews were maternal age, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status, smoking status, pre-pregnancy and current BMI, parity, family history of T2DM or cardiovascular disease, ethnicity, and time of delivery. Further research is needed to evaluate the value of embedding these pregnancy complications as part of assessment for future risk of T2DM and chronic hypertension.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Wambua
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Megha Singh
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kelvin Okoth
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - Christopher Yau
- Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
- Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Level 3 Women's Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
- Health Data Research, London, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - Francesca L Crowe
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Riley RD, Snell KIE, Archer L, Ensor J, Debray TPA, van Calster B, van Smeden M, Collins GS. Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 3): calculating the sample size required for an external validation study. BMJ 2024; 384:e074821. [PMID: 38253388 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lucinda Archer
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ben van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Riley RD, Archer L, Snell KIE, Ensor J, Dhiman P, Martin GP, Bonnett LJ, Collins GS. Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 2): how to undertake an external validation study. BMJ 2024; 384:e074820. [PMID: 38224968 PMCID: PMC10788734 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074820] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/17/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lucinda Archer
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Laura J Bonnett
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Collins GS, Dhiman P, Ma J, Schlussel MM, Archer L, Van Calster B, Harrell FE, Martin GP, Moons KGM, van Smeden M, Sperrin M, Bullock GS, Riley RD. Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation. BMJ 2024; 384:e074819. [PMID: 38191193 PMCID: PMC10772854 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074819] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Jie Ma
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Michael M Schlussel
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Lucinda Archer
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, UK
| | - Ben Van Calster
- KU Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
- EPI-Centre, KU Leuven, Belgium
| | - Frank E Harrell
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Matthew Sperrin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Garrett S Bullock
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
- Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hoogland J, Debray TPA, Crowther MJ, Riley RD, IntHout J, Reitsma JB, Zwinderman AH. Regularized parametric survival modeling to improve risk prediction models. Biom J 2024; 66:e2200319. [PMID: 37775946 DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202200319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2022] [Revised: 04/30/2023] [Accepted: 09/17/2023] [Indexed: 10/01/2023]
Abstract
We propose to combine the benefits of flexible parametric survival modeling and regularization to improve risk prediction modeling in the context of time-to-event data. Thereto, we introduce ridge, lasso, elastic net, and group lasso penalties for both log hazard and log cumulative hazard models. The log (cumulative) hazard in these models is represented by a flexible function of time that may depend on the covariates (i.e., covariate effects may be time-varying). We show that the optimization problem for the proposed models can be formulated as a convex optimization problem and provide a user-friendly R implementation for model fitting and penalty parameter selection based on cross-validation. Simulation study results show the advantage of regularization in terms of increased out-of-sample prediction accuracy and improved calibration and discrimination of predicted survival probabilities, especially when sample size was relatively small with respect to model complexity. An applied example illustrates the proposed methods. In summary, our work provides both a foundation for and an easily accessible implementation of regularized parametric survival modeling and suggests that it improves out-of-sample prediction performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Hoogland
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T P A Debray
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M J Crowther
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - R D Riley
- School for Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - J IntHout
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A H Zwinderman
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Levis B, Snell KIE, Damen JAA, Hattle M, Ensor J, Dhiman P, Andaur Navarro CL, Takwoingi Y, Whiting PF, Debray TPA, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM, Collins GS, Riley RD. Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 165:111206. [PMID: 37925059 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Revised: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 10/30/2023] [Indexed: 11/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Risk of bias assessments are important in meta-analyses of both aggregate and individual participant data (IPD). There is limited evidence on whether and how risk of bias of included studies or datasets in IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is assessed. We review how risk of bias is currently assessed, reported, and incorporated in IPDMAs of test accuracy and clinical prediction model studies and provide recommendations for improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed (January 2018-May 2020) to identify IPDMAs of test accuracy and prediction models, then elicited whether each IPDMA assessed risk of bias of included studies and, if so, how assessments were reported and subsequently incorporated into the IPDMAs. RESULTS Forty-nine IPDMAs were included. Nineteen of 27 (70%) test accuracy IPDMAs assessed risk of bias, compared to 5 of 22 (23%) prediction model IPDMAs. Seventeen of 19 (89%) test accuracy IPDMAs used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), but no tool was used consistently among prediction model IPDMAs. Of IPDMAs assessing risk of bias, 7 (37%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided details on the information sources (e.g., the original manuscript, IPD, primary investigators) used to inform judgments, and 4 (21%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided information or whether assessments were done before or after obtaining the IPD of the included studies or datasets. Of all included IPDMAs, only seven test accuracy IPDMAs (26%) and one prediction model IPDMA (5%) incorporated risk of bias assessments into their meta-analyses. For future IPDMA projects, we provide guidance on how to adapt tools such as Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (for prediction models) and QUADAS-2 (for test accuracy) to assess risk of bias of included primary studies and their IPD. CONCLUSION Risk of bias assessments and their reporting need to be improved in IPDMAs of test accuracy and, especially, prediction model studies. Using recommended tools, both before and after IPD are obtained, will address this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke Levis
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Miriam Hattle
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Penny F Whiting
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Collins GS, Whittle R, Bullock GS, Logullo P, Dhiman P, de Beyer JA, Riley RD, Schlussel MM. Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 165:111199. [PMID: 37898461 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2023] [Revised: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 10/20/2023] [Indexed: 10/30/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices. RESULTS We identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs. CONCLUSION The adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary S Collins
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
| | - Rebecca Whittle
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Garrett S Bullock
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Patricia Logullo
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer A de Beyer
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Michael M Schlussel
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Riley RD, Pate A, Dhiman P, Archer L, Martin GP, Collins GS. Clinical prediction models and the multiverse of madness. BMC Med 2023; 21:502. [PMID: 38110939 PMCID: PMC10729337 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03212-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Each year, thousands of clinical prediction models are developed to make predictions (e.g. estimated risk) to inform individual diagnosis and prognosis in healthcare. However, most are not reliable for use in clinical practice. MAIN BODY We discuss how the creation of a prediction model (e.g. using regression or machine learning methods) is dependent on the sample and size of data used to develop it-were a different sample of the same size used from the same overarching population, the developed model could be very different even when the same model development methods are used. In other words, for each model created, there exists a multiverse of other potential models for that sample size and, crucially, an individual's predicted value (e.g. estimated risk) may vary greatly across this multiverse. The more an individual's prediction varies across the multiverse, the greater the instability. We show how small development datasets lead to more different models in the multiverse, often with vastly unstable individual predictions, and explain how this can be exposed by using bootstrapping and presenting instability plots. We recommend healthcare researchers seek to use large model development datasets to reduce instability concerns. This is especially important to ensure reliability across subgroups and improve model fairness in practice. CONCLUSIONS Instability is concerning as an individual's predicted value is used to guide their counselling, resource prioritisation, and clinical decision making. If different samples lead to different models with very different predictions for the same individual, then this should cast doubt into using a particular model for that individual. Therefore, visualising, quantifying and reporting the instability in individual-level predictions is essential when proposing a new model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D Riley
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Alexander Pate
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Lucinda Archer
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Riley RD. Effect of a doctor working during the festive period on population health: natural experiment using 60 years of Doctor Who episodes (the TARDIS study). BMJ 2023; 383:e077143. [PMID: 38110231 PMCID: PMC10726290 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the effect of a (fictional) doctor working during the festive period on population health. DESIGN Natural experiment. SETTING England, Wales, and the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Age standardised annual mortality rates in England, Wales, and the UK from 1963, when the BBC first broadcast Doctor Who, a fictional programme with a character called the Doctor who fights villains and intervenes to save others while travelling through space and time. Mortality rates were modelled in a time series analysis accounting for non-linear trends over time, and associations were estimated in relation to a new Doctor Who episode broadcast during the previous festive period, 24 December to 1 January. An interrupted time series analysis modelled the shift in mortality rates from 2005, when festive episodes of Doctor Who could be classed as a yearly Christmas intervention. RESULTS 31 festive periods from 1963 have featured a new Doctor Who episode, including 14 broadcast on Christmas Day. In time series analyses, an association was found between broadcasts during the festive period and subsequent lower annual mortality rates. In particular, episodes shown on Christmas Day were associated with 0.60 fewer deaths per 1000 person years (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.99; P=0.003) in England and Wales and 0.40 fewer deaths per 1000 person years (0.08 to 0.73; P=0.02) in the UK. The interrupted time series analysis showed a strong shift (reduction) in mortality rates from 2005 onwards in association with the Doctor Who Christmas intervention, with a mean 0.73 fewer deaths per 1000 person years (0.21 to 1.26; P=0.01) in England and Wales and a mean 0.62 fewer deaths per 1000 person years (0.16 to 1.09; P=0.01) in the UK. CONCLUSIONS A new Doctor Who episode shown every festive period, especially on Christmas Day, was associated with reduced mortality rates in England, Wales, and the UK, suggesting that a doctor working over the festive period could lower mortality rates. This finding reinforces why healthcare provision should not be taken for granted and may prompt the BBC and Disney+ to televise new episodes of Doctor Who every festive period, ideally on Christmas Day.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Bullock GS, Ward P, Impellizzeri FM, Kluzek S, Hughes T, Hillman C, Waterman BR, Danelson K, Henry K, Barr E, Healy K, Räisänen AM, Gomez C, Fernandez G, Wolf J, Nicholson KF, Sell T, Zerega R, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Collins GS. Up Front and Open? Shrouded in Secrecy? Or Somewhere in Between? A Meta-Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023; 53:1-13. [PMID: 37860866 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2023.12016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate open science practices in research published in the top 5 sports medicine journals from May 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. DESIGN: A meta-research systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top 5 sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate: (1) British Journal of Sports Medicine, (2) Journal of Sport and Health Science, (3) American Journal of Sports Medicine, (4) Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, and (5) Sports Medicine-Open. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, gray literature, or animal or cadaver models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (range: 0-8; interquartile range: 2). Two hundred thirty-four studies (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-99%) provided an author conflict-of-interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62%-73%) reported funding. Twenty-one studies (9%, 95% CI: 5%-12%) provided open-access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17%-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25%-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) were preregistered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-5%) reported patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12):1-13. Epub 20 October 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Garrett S Bullock
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
- Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Sport Injury Prevention Research Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | | | - Franco M Impellizzeri
- School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Stefan Kluzek
- Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Sports Medicine Research Department, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- English Institute of Sport, Marlow, United Kingdom
| | - Tom Hughes
- Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Charles Hillman
- Sports Medicine Research Department, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Brian R Waterman
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Kerry Danelson
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Kaitlin Henry
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Emily Barr
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Kelsey Healy
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Anu M Räisänen
- Department of Physical Therapy Education - Oregon, College of Health Sciences-Northwest, Western University of Health Sciences, Lebanon, OR
- Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Christina Gomez
- Department of Physical Therapy Education - Oregon, College of Health Sciences-Northwest, Western University of Health Sciences, Lebanon, OR
| | - Garrett Fernandez
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Jakob Wolf
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Kristen F Nicholson
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | | | | | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Riley RD, Collins GS. Stability of clinical prediction models developed using statistical or machine learning methods. Biom J 2023; 65:e2200302. [PMID: 37466257 PMCID: PMC10952221 DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202200302] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Revised: 04/26/2023] [Accepted: 05/02/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
Clinical prediction models estimate an individual's risk of a particular health outcome. A developed model is a consequence of the development dataset and model-building strategy, including the sample size, number of predictors, and analysis method (e.g., regression or machine learning). We raise the concern that many models are developed using small datasets that lead to instability in the model and its predictions (estimated risks). We define four levels of model stability in estimated risks moving from the overall mean to the individual level. Through simulation and case studies of statistical and machine learning approaches, we show instability in a model's estimated risks is often considerable, and ultimately manifests itself as miscalibration of predictions in new data. Therefore, we recommend researchers always examine instability at the model development stage and propose instability plots and measures to do so. This entails repeating the model-building steps (those used to develop the original prediction model) in each of multiple (e.g., 1000) bootstrap samples, to produce multiple bootstrap models, and deriving (i) a prediction instability plot of bootstrap model versus original model predictions; (ii) the mean absolute prediction error (mean absolute difference between individuals' original and bootstrap model predictions), and (iii) calibration, classification, and decision curve instability plots of bootstrap models applied in the original sample. A case study illustrates how these instability assessments help reassure (or not) whether model predictions are likely to be reliable (or not), while informing a model's critical appraisal (risk of bias rating), fairness, and further validation requirements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D. Riley
- Institute of Applied Health ResearchCollege of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Gary S. Collins
- Centre for Statistics in MedicineNuffield Department of OrthopaedicsRheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Booth S, Mozumder SI, Archer L, Ensor J, Riley RD, Lambert PC, Rutherford MJ. Using temporal recalibration to improve the calibration of risk prediction models in competing risk settings when there are trends in survival over time. Stat Med 2023; 42:5007-5024. [PMID: 37705296 PMCID: PMC10946485 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023]
Abstract
We have previously proposed temporal recalibration to account for trends in survival over time to improve the calibration of predictions from prognostic models for new patients. This involves first estimating the predictor effects using data from all individuals (full dataset) and then re-estimating the baseline using a subset of the most recent data whilst constraining the predictor effects to remain the same. In this article, we demonstrate how temporal recalibration can be applied in competing risk settings by recalibrating each cause-specific (or subdistribution) hazard model separately. We illustrate this using an example of colon cancer survival with data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program. Data from patients diagnosed in 1995-2004 were used to fit two models for deaths due to colon cancer and other causes respectively. We discuss considerations that need to be made in order to apply temporal recalibration such as the choice of data used in the recalibration step. We also demonstrate how to assess the calibration of these models in new data for patients diagnosed subsequently in 2005. Comparison was made to a standard analysis (when improvements over time are not taken into account) and a period analysis which is similar to temporal recalibration but differs in the data used to estimate the predictor effects. The 10-year calibration plots demonstrated that using the standard approach over-estimated the risk of death due to colon cancer and the total risk of death and that calibration was improved using temporal recalibration or period analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Booth
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health SciencesUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| | - Sarwar I. Mozumder
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health SciencesUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
- Oncology Biometrics Statistical Innovation, AstraZenecaCambridgeUK
| | - Lucinda Archer
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Richard D. Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Paul C. Lambert
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health SciencesUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
| | - Mark J. Rutherford
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health SciencesUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Stynes S, Snell KI, Riley RD, Konstantinou K, Cherrington A, Daud N, Ostelo R, O'Dowd J, Foster NE. Predictors of outcome in sciatica patients following an epidural steroid injection: the POiSE prospective observational cohort study protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e077776. [PMID: 37984960 PMCID: PMC10660415 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2023] [Accepted: 10/17/2023] [Indexed: 11/22/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Sciatica can be very painful and, in most cases, is due to pressure on a spinal nerve root from a disc herniation with associated inflammation. For some patients, the pain persists, and one management option is a spinal epidural steroid injection (ESI). The aim of an ESI is to relieve leg pain, improve function and reduce the need for surgery. ESIs work well in some patients but not in others, but we cannot identify these patient subgroups currently. This study aims to identify factors, including patient characteristics, clinical examination and imaging findings, that help in predicting who does well and who does not after an ESI. The overall objective is to develop a prognostic model to support individualised patient and clinical decision-making regarding ESI. METHODS POiSE is a prospective cohort study of 439 patients with sciatica referred by their clinician for an ESI. Participants will receive weekly text messages until 12 weeks following their ESIand then again at 24 weeks following their ESI to collect data on leg pain severity. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after their ESI to collect data on pain, disability, recovery and additional interventions. The prognosis for the cohort will be described. The primary outcome measure for the prognostic model is leg pain at 6 weeks. Prognostic models will also be developed for secondary outcomes of disability and recovery at 6 weeks and additional interventions at 24 weeks following ESI. Statistical analyses will include multivariable linear and logistic regression with mixed effects model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The POiSE study has received ethical approval (South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee 21/SC/0257). Dissemination will be guided by our patient and public engagement group and will include scientific publications, conference presentations and social media.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siobhan Stynes
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
- North Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Integrated Musculoskeletal Service, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Kym Ie Snell
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Institute of Applied Health Research, Birmingham, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Institute of Applied Health Research, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kika Konstantinou
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
- North Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Integrated Musculoskeletal Service, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Staffordshire, UK
| | | | - Noor Daud
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Raymond Ostelo
- Department of Health Sciences, VU Amsterdam Faculty of Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - John O'Dowd
- Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hampshire, UK
| | - Nadine E Foster
- School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
- STARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service, The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Riley RD, Ensor J, Hattle M, Papadimitropoulou K, Morris TP. Two-stage or not two-stage? That is the question for IPD meta-analysis projects. Res Synth Methods 2023; 14:903-910. [PMID: 37606180 PMCID: PMC7615283 DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2023] [Revised: 06/27/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/23/2023]
Abstract
Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) projects obtain, check, harmonise and synthesise raw data from multiple studies. When undertaking the meta-analysis, researchers must decide between a two-stage or a one-stage approach. In a two-stage approach, the IPD are first analysed separately within each study to obtain aggregate data (e.g., treatment effect estimates and standard errors); then, in the second stage, these aggregate data are combined in a standard meta-analysis model (e.g., common-effect or random-effects). In a one-stage approach, the IPD from all studies are analysed in a single step using an appropriate model that accounts for clustering of participants within studies and, potentially, between-study heterogeneity (e.g., a general or generalised linear mixed model). The best approach to take is debated in the literature, and so here we provide clearer guidance for a broad audience. Both approaches are important tools for IPDMA researchers and neither are a panacea. If most studies in the IPDMA are small (few participants or events), a one-stage approach is recommended due to using a more exact likelihood. However, in other situations, researchers can choose either approach, carefully following best practice. Some previous claims recommending to always use a one-stage approach are misleading, and the two-stage approach will often suffice for most researchers. When differences do arise between the two approaches, often it is caused by researchers using different modelling assumptions or estimation methods, rather than using one or two stages per se.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D. Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Miriam Hattle
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
- School of MedicineKeele UniversityKeeleStaffordshireUK
| | | | - Tim P. Morris
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCLInstitute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCLLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Bullock GS, Ward P, Impellizzeri FM, Kluzek S, Hughes T, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Collins GS. The Trade Secret Taboo: Open Science Methods are Required to Improve Prediction Models in Sports Medicine and Performance. Sports Med 2023; 53:1841-1849. [PMID: 37160562 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-023-01849-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Clinical prediction models in sports medicine that utilize regression or machine learning techniques have become more widely published, used, and disseminated. However, these models are typically characterized by poor methodology and incomplete reporting, and an inadequate evaluation of performance, leading to unreliable predictions and weak clinical utility within their intended sport population. Before implementation in practice, models require a thorough evaluation. Strong replicable methods and transparency reporting allow practitioners and researchers to make independent judgments as to the model's validity, performance, clinical usefulness, and confidence it will do no harm. However, this is not reflected in the sports medicine literature. As shown in a recent systematic review of models for predicting sports injury models, most were typically characterized by poor methodology, incomplete reporting, and inadequate performance evaluation. Because of constraints imposed by data from individual teams, the development of accurate, reliable, and useful models is highly reliant on external validation. However, a barrier to collaboration is a desire to maintain a competitive advantage; a team's proprietary information is often perceived as high value, and so these 'trade secrets' are frequently guarded. These 'trade secrets' also apply to commercially available models, as developers are unwilling to share proprietary (and potentially profitable) development and validation information. In this Current Opinion, we: (1) argue that open science is essential for improving sport prediction models and (2) critically examine sport prediction models for open science practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Garrett S Bullock
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, 475 Vine St., Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA.
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
- Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | | | - Franco M Impellizzeri
- School of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stefan Kluzek
- Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Sports Medicine Research Department, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- English Institute of Sport, Bisham Abbey, UK
| | - Tom Hughes
- Manchester United Football Club, Manchester, UK
- Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Nakafero G, Card T, Grainge MJ, Williams HC, Taal MW, Aithal GP, Fox CP, Mallen CD, van der Windt DA, Stevenson MD, Riley RD, Abhishek A. Risk-stratified monitoring for thiopurine toxicity in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: prognostic model development, validation, and, health economic evaluation. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 64:102213. [PMID: 37745026 PMCID: PMC10514402 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2023] [Revised: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 08/29/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Patients established on thiopurines (e.g., azathioprine) are recommended to undergo three-monthly blood tests for the early detection of blood, liver, or kidney toxicity. These side-effects are uncommon during long-term treatment. We developed a prognostic model that could be used to inform risk-stratified decisions on frequency of monitoring blood-tests during long-term thiopurine treatment, and, performed health-economic evaluation of alternate monitoring intervals. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study set in the UK primary-care. Data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Gold formed development and validation cohorts, respectively. People age ≥18 years, diagnosed with an immune mediated inflammatory disease, prescribed thiopurine by their general practitioner for at-least six-months between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2019 were eligible. The outcome was thiopurine discontinuation with abnormal blood-test results. Patients were followed up from six-months after first primary-care thiopurine prescription to up to five-years. Penalised Cox regression developed the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Calibration and discrimination assessed model performance. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with lengthening the interval between blood-tests. Findings Data from 5982 (405 events over 16,117 person-years) and 3573 (269 events over 9075 person-years) participants were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Fourteen candidate predictors (21 parameters) were included. The optimism adjusted R2 and Royston D statistic in development data were 0.11 and 0.76, respectively. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic (95% Confidence Interval) in the validation data were 1.10 (0.84-1.36) and 0.72 (0.52-0.92), respectively. A 2-year period between monitoring blood-test was most cost-effective in all deciles of predicted risk but the gain between monitoring annually or biennially reduced in higher risk deciles. Interpretation This prognostic model requires information that is readily available during routine clinical care and may be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring for thiopurine toxicity. These findings should be considered by specialist societies when recommending blood monitoring during thiopurine prescription to bring about sustainable and equitable change in clinical practice. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgina Nakafero
- Academic Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Tim Card
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Matthew J. Grainge
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Hywel C. Williams
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Maarten W. Taal
- Centre for Kidney Research and Innovation, School of Medicine, Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Derby DE22 3NE, UK
| | - Guruprasad P. Aithal
- Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
| | - Christopher P. Fox
- Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christian D. Mallen
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele ST5 5BJ, UK
| | | | - Matthew D. Stevenson
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK
| | - Richard D. Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Abhishek Abhishek
- Academic Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Ma J, Dhiman P, Qi C, Bullock G, van Smeden M, Riley RD, Collins GS. Poor handling of continuous predictors in clinical prediction models using logistic regression: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 161:140-151. [PMID: 37536504 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Revised: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/26/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES When developing a clinical prediction model, assuming a linear relationship between the continuous predictors and outcome is not recommended. Incorrect specification of the functional form of continuous predictors could reduce predictive accuracy. We examine how continuous predictors are handled in studies developing a clinical prediction model. METHODS We searched PubMed for clinical prediction model studies developing a logistic regression model for a binary outcome, published between July 01, 2020, and July 30, 2020. RESULTS In total, 118 studies were included in the review (18 studies (15%) assessed the linearity assumption or used methods to handle nonlinearity, and 100 studies (85%) did not). Transformation and splines were commonly used to handle nonlinearity, used in 7 (n = 7/18, 39%) and 6 (n = 6/18, 33%) studies, respectively. Categorization was most often used method to handle continuous predictors (n = 67/118, 56.8%) where most studies used dichotomization (n = 40/67, 60%). Only ten models included nonlinear terms in the final model (n = 10/18, 56%). CONCLUSION Though widely recommended not to categorize continuous predictors or assume a linear relationship between outcome and continuous predictors, most studies categorize continuous predictors, few studies assess the linearity assumption, and even fewer use methodology to account for nonlinearity. Methodological guidance is provided to guide researchers on how to handle continuous predictors when developing a clinical prediction model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Ma
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, United Kingdom.
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, United Kingdom
| | - Cathy Qi
- Population Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park Swansea, SA2 8PP, Swansea, United Kingdom
| | - Garrett Bullock
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Riley RD, Collins GS, Hattle M, Whittle R, Ensor J. Calculating the power of a planned individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials to examine a treatment-covariate interaction with a time-to-event outcome. Res Synth Methods 2023; 14:718-730. [PMID: 37386750 PMCID: PMC10947306 DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Revised: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/07/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
Before embarking on an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project, researchers should consider the power of their planned IPDMA conditional on the studies promising their IPD and their characteristics. Such power estimates help inform whether the IPDMA project is worth the time and funding investment, before IPD are collected. Here, we suggest how to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA of randomised trials aiming to examine treatment-covariate interactions at the participant-level (i.e., treatment effect modifiers). We focus on a time-to-event (survival) outcome with a binary or continuous covariate, and propose an approximate analytic power calculation that conditions on the actual characteristics of trials, for example, in terms of sample sizes and covariate distributions. The proposed method has five steps: (i) extracting the following aggregate data for each group in each trial-the number of participants and events, the mean and SD for each continuous covariate, and the proportion of participants in each category for each binary covariate; (ii) specifying a minimally important interaction size; (iii) deriving an approximate estimate of Fisher's information matrix for each trial and the corresponding variance of the interaction estimate per trial, based on assuming an exponential survival distribution; (iv) deriving the estimated variance of the summary interaction estimate from the planned IPDMA, under a common-effect assumption, and (v) calculating the power of the IPDMA based on a two-sided Wald test. Stata and R code are provided and a real example provided for illustration. Further evaluation in real examples and simulations is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D. Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Gary S. Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | | | - Rebecca Whittle
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Wu F, Fuleihan GEH, Cai G, Lamberg-Allardt C, Viljakainen HT, Rahme M, Grønborg IM, Andersen R, Khadilkar A, Zulf MM, Mølgaard C, Larnkjær A, Zhu K, Riley RD, Winzenberg T. Vitamin D supplementation for improving bone density in vitamin D-deficient children and adolescents: systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2023; 118:498-506. [PMID: 37661104 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.05.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vitamin D supplements are widely used for improving bone health in children and adolescents, but their effects in vitamin D-deficient children are unclear. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to examine whether the effect of vitamin D supplementation on bone mineral density (BMD) in children and adolescents differs by baseline vitamin D status and estimate the effect in vitamin D-deficient individuals. METHODS This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, MBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and ISI Web of Science (until May 27, 2020) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation reporting bone density outcomes after ≥6 mo in healthy individuals aged 1-19 y. We used two-stage IPD meta-analysis to determine treatment effects on total body bone mineral content and BMD at the hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and proximal and distal forearm after 1 y; examine whether effects varied by baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration, and estimate treatment effects for each 25(OH)D subgroup. RESULTS Eleven RCTs were included. Nine comprising 1439 participants provided IPD (86% females, mean baseline 25(OH)D = 36.3 nmol/L). Vitamin D supplementation had a small overall effect on total hip areal BMD (weighted mean difference = 6.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.7, 12.9 mg/cm2; I2 = 7.2%), but no effects on other outcomes. There was no clear evidence of linear or nonlinear interactions between baseline 25(OH)D and treatment; effects were similar in baseline 25(OH)D subgroups (cutoff of 35 or 50 nmol/L). The evidence was of high certainty. CONCLUSIONS Clinically important benefits for bone density from 1-y vitamin D supplementation in healthy children and adolescents, regardless of baseline vitamin D status, are unlikely. However, our findings are mostly generalizable to White postpubertal girls and do not apply to those with baseline 25(OH)D outside the studied range or with symptomatic vitamin D deficiency (e.g., rickets). This study was preregistered at PROSPERO as CRD42017068772. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017068772.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Feitong Wu
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Baker Department of Cardiometabolic Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan
- Calcium Metabolism & Osteoporosis Program, WHO CC in Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Guoqi Cai
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China
| | - Christel Lamberg-Allardt
- Calcium Research Unit, Department of Food and Nutrition, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Maya Rahme
- Calcium Metabolism & Osteoporosis Program, WHO CC in Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Ida M Grønborg
- Research Group for Risk-Benefit, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Rikke Andersen
- Research Group for Risk-Benefit, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Anuradha Khadilkar
- Department of Growth and Pediatric Endocrinology, Hirabai Cowasji Jehangir Medical Research Institute, Jehangir Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
| | - Mughal M Zulf
- Department of Paediatric Endocrinology, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Christian Mølgaard
- Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Anni Larnkjær
- Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Kun Zhu
- Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
| | - Tania Winzenberg
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
de Jong VMT, Hoogland J, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Nguyen TL, Debray TPA. Propensity-based standardization to enhance the validation and interpretation of prediction model discrimination for a target population. Stat Med 2023; 42:3508-3528. [PMID: 37311563 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2021] [Revised: 02/26/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
External validation of the discriminative ability of prediction models is of key importance. However, the interpretation of such evaluations is challenging, as the ability to discriminate depends on both the sample characteristics (ie, case-mix) and the generalizability of predictor coefficients, but most discrimination indices do not provide any insight into their respective contributions. To disentangle differences in discriminative ability across external validation samples due to a lack of model generalizability from differences in sample characteristics, we propose propensity-weighted measures of discrimination. These weighted metrics, which are derived from propensity scores for sample membership, are standardized for case-mix differences between the model development and validation samples, allowing for a fair comparison of discriminative ability in terms of model characteristics in a target population of interest. We illustrate our methods with the validation of eight prediction models for deep vein thrombosis in 12 external validation data sets and assess our methods in a simulation study. In the illustrative example, propensity score standardization reduced between-study heterogeneity of discrimination, indicating that between-study variability was partially attributable to case-mix. The simulation study showed that only flexible propensity-score methods (allowing for non-linear effects) produced unbiased estimates of model discrimination in the target population, and only when the positivity assumption was met. Propensity score-based standardization may facilitate the interpretation of (heterogeneity in) discriminative ability of a prediction model as observed across multiple studies, and may guide model updating strategies for a particular target population. Careful propensity score modeling with attention for non-linear relations is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valentijn M T de Jong
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Data Analytics and Methods Task Force, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hoogland
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tri-Long Nguyen
- Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Smart Data Analysis and Statistics, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Dhiman P, Ma J, Qi C, Bullock G, Sergeant JC, Riley RD, Collins GS. Sample size requirements are not being considered in studies developing prediction models for binary outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23:188. [PMID: 37598153 PMCID: PMC10439652 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-02008-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2023] [Accepted: 08/04/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Having an appropriate sample size is important when developing a clinical prediction model. We aimed to review how sample size is considered in studies developing a prediction model for a binary outcome. METHODS We searched PubMed for studies published between 01/07/2020 and 30/07/2020 and reviewed the sample size calculations used to develop the prediction models. Using the available information, we calculated the minimum sample size that would be needed to estimate overall risk and minimise overfitting in each study and summarised the difference between the calculated and used sample size. RESULTS A total of 119 studies were included, of which nine studies provided sample size justification (8%). The recommended minimum sample size could be calculated for 94 studies: 73% (95% CI: 63-82%) used sample sizes lower than required to estimate overall risk and minimise overfitting including 26% studies that used sample sizes lower than required to estimate overall risk only. A similar number of studies did not meet the ≥ 10EPV criteria (75%, 95% CI: 66-84%). The median deficit of the number of events used to develop a model was 75 [IQR: 234 lower to 7 higher]) which reduced to 63 if the total available data (before any data splitting) was used [IQR:225 lower to 7 higher]. Studies that met the minimum required sample size had a median c-statistic of 0.84 (IQR:0.80 to 0.9) and studies where the minimum sample size was not met had a median c-statistic of 0.83 (IQR: 0.75 to 0.9). Studies that met the ≥ 10 EPP criteria had a median c-statistic of 0.80 (IQR: 0.73 to 0.84). CONCLUSIONS Prediction models are often developed with no sample size calculation, as a consequence many are too small to precisely estimate the overall risk. We encourage researchers to justify, perform and report sample size calculations when developing a prediction model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
| | - Jie Ma
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Cathy Qi
- Population Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
| | - Garrett Bullock
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
- Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie C Sergeant
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Holden MA, Hattle M, Runhaar J, Riley RD, Healey EL, Quicke J, van der Windt DA, Dziedzic K, van Middelkoop M, Burke D, Corp N, Legha A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Foster NE. Moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Lancet Rheumatol 2023; 5:e386-e400. [PMID: 38251550 DOI: 10.1016/s2665-9913(23)00122-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2023] [Revised: 04/08/2023] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many international clinical guidelines recommend therapeutic exercise as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis. We aimed to identify individual patient-level moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. METHODS We did a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing therapeutic exercise with non-exercise controls in people with knee osteoathritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. We searched ten databases from March 1, 2012, to Feb 25, 2019, for randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of exercise with non-exercise or other exercise controls on pain and physical function outcomes among people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. IPD were requested from leads of all eligible randomised controlled trials. 12 potential moderators of interest were explored to ascertain whether they were associated with short-term (12 weeks), medium-term (6 months), and long-term (12 months) effects of exercise on self-reported pain and physical function, in comparison with non-exercise controls. Overall intervention effects were also summarised. This study is prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054049). FINDINGS Of 91 eligible randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with non-exercise controls, IPD from 31 randomised controlled trials (n=4241 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials included participants with knee osteoarthritis (18 [58%] of 31 trials), hip osteoarthritis (six [19%]), or both (seven [23%]) and tested heterogeneous exercise interventions versus heterogeneous non-exercise controls, with variable risk of bias. Summary meta-analysis results showed that, on average, compared with non-exercise controls, therapeutic exercise reduced pain on a standardised 0-100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst pain), with a difference of -6·36 points (95% CI -8·45 to -4·27, borrowing of strength [BoS] 10·3%, between-study variance [τ2] 21·6) in the short term, -3·77 points (-5·97 to -1·57, BoS 30·0%, τ2 14·4) in the medium term, and -3·43 points (-5·18 to -1·69, BoS 31·7%, τ2 4·5) in the long term. Therapeutic exercise also improved physical function on a standardised 0-100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst physical function), with a difference of -4·46 points in the short term (95% CI -5·95 to -2·98, BoS 10·5%, τ2 10·1), -2·71 points in the medium term (-4·63 to -0·78, BoS 33·6%, τ2 11·9), and -3·39 points in the long term (-4·97 to -1·81, BoS 34·1%, τ2 6·4). Baseline pain and physical function moderated the effect of exercise on pain and physical function outcomes. Those with higher self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline (ie, poorer physical function) generally benefited more than those with lower self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline, with the evidence most certain in the short term (12 weeks). INTERPRETATION There was evidence of a small, positive overall effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function compared with non-exercise controls. However, this effect is of questionable clinical importance, particularly in the medium and long term. As individuals with higher pain severity and poorer physical function at baseline benefited more than those with lower pain severity and better physical function at baseline, targeting individuals with higher levels of osteoarthritis-related pain and disability for therapeutic exercise might be of merit. FUNDING Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melanie A Holden
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK.
| | - Miriam Hattle
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Jos Runhaar
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK; Erasmus MC University, Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Richard D Riley
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK; University of Birmingham, Institute of Applied Health Research, Birmingham, UK
| | - Emma L Healey
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Jonathan Quicke
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK; Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, London, UK
| | | | - Krysia Dziedzic
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | | | - Danielle Burke
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Nadia Corp
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Amardeep Legha
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | | | - Nadine E Foster
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, UK; Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service, The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Marlin N, Godolphin PJ, Hooper RL, Riley RD, Rogozińska E. Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 2: methodological guidance is available. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 159:319-329. [PMID: 37146657 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review methodological guidance for nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL), and linear effect modification and nonlinear effect modification (LEM and NLEM) at the participant level in individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) and their power requirements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify methodology publications on IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM (PROSPERO CRD42019126768). RESULTS Through screening 6,466 records we identified 54 potential articles of which 23 full texts were relevant. Nine further relevant publications were published before or after the literature search and were added. Of these 32 references, 21 articles considered LEM, 6 articles NL or NLEM and 6 articles described sample size calculations. A book described all four. Sample size may be calculated through simulation or closed form. Assessments of LEM or NLEM at the participant level need to be based on within-trial information alone. Nonlinearity (NL or NLEM) can be modeled using polynomials or splines to avoid categorization. CONCLUSION Detailed methodological guidance on IPDMA of effect modification at participant-level is available. However, methodology papers for sample size and nonlinearity are rarer and may not cover all scenarios. On these aspects, further guidance is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Marlin
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK.
| | - Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Richard L Hooper
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Marlin N, Godolphin PJ, Hooper RL, Riley RD, Rogozińska E. Nonlinear effects and effect modification at the participant-level in IPD meta-analysis part 1: analysis methods are often substandard. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 159:309-318. [PMID: 37146661 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review analysis methods used for linear effect modification (LEM), nonlinear covariate-outcome associations (NL) and nonlinear effect modification (NLEM) at the participant-level in individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library to identify IPDMA of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42019126768). We investigated if and how IPDMA examined LEM, NL and NLEM, including whether aggregation bias was addressed and if power was considered. RESULTS We screened 6,466 records, randomly sampled 207 and identified 100 IPDMA of LEM, NL or NLEM. Power for LEM was calculated a priori in 3 IPDMA. Of 100 IPDMA, 94 analyzed LEM, 4 NLEM and 8 NL. One-stage models were favoured for all three (56%, 100%, 50%, respectively). Two-stage models were used in 15%, 0% and 25% of IPDMA with unclear descriptions in 30%, 0% and 25%, respectively. Only 12% of one-stage LEM and NLEM IPDMA provided sufficient detail to confirm they had addressed aggregation bias. CONCLUSION Investigation of effect modification at the participant-level is common in IPDMA projects, but methods are often open to bias or lack detailed descriptions. Nonlinearity of continuous covariates and power of IPDMA are rarely assessed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Marlin
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK.
| | - Peter J Godolphin
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Richard L Hooper
- Methodology Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London E1 2AB, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Ewelina Rogozińska
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JAA, Takada T, Nijman SWJ, Dhiman P, Ma J, Collins GS, Bajpai R, Riley RD, Moons KGM, Hooft L. Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 158:99-110. [PMID: 37024020 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 02/24/2023] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 04/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We evaluated the presence and frequency of spin practices and poor reporting standards in studies that developed and/or validated clinical prediction models using supervised machine learning techniques. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We systematically searched PubMed from 01/2018 to 12/2019 to identify diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies using supervised machine learning. No restrictions were placed on data source, outcome, or clinical specialty. RESULTS We included 152 studies: 38% reported diagnostic models and 62% prognostic models. When reported, discrimination was described without precision estimates in 53/71 abstracts (74.6% [95% CI 63.4-83.3]) and 53/81 main texts (65.4% [95% CI 54.6-74.9]). Of the 21 abstracts that recommended the model to be used in daily practice, 20 (95.2% [95% CI 77.3-99.8]) lacked any external validation of the developed models. Likewise, 74/133 (55.6% [95% CI 47.2-63.8]) studies made recommendations for clinical use in their main text without any external validation. Reporting guidelines were cited in 13/152 (8.6% [95% CI 5.1-14.1]) studies. CONCLUSION Spin practices and poor reporting standards are also present in studies on prediction models using machine learning techniques. A tailored framework for the identification of spin will enhance the sound reporting of prediction model studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Toshihiko Takada
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Steven W J Nijman
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Center for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Jie Ma
- Center for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Center for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Ram Bajpai
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Nakafero G, Grainge MJ, Williams HC, Card T, Taal MW, Aithal GP, Fox CP, Mallen CD, van der Windt DA, Stevenson MD, Riley RD, Abhishek A. Risk stratified monitoring for methotrexate toxicity in immune mediated inflammatory diseases: prognostic model development and validation using primary care data from the UK. BMJ 2023; 381:e074678. [PMID: 37253479 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-074678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a prognostic model to inform risk stratified decisions on frequency of monitoring blood tests during long term methotrexate treatment. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Electronic health records within the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold and CPRD Aurum. PARTICIPANTS Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of an immune mediated inflammatory disease who were prescribed methotrexate by their general practitioner for six months or more during 2007-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Discontinuation of methotrexate owing to abnormal monitoring blood test result. Patients were followed-up from six months after their first prescription for methotrexate in primary care to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation for any other reason, leaving the practice, last data collection from the practice, death, five years, or 31 December 2019. Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation, with bootstrapping used to shrink predictor effects for optimism. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS Data from 13 110 (854 events) and 23 999 (1486 events) participants were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. 11 candidate predictors (17 parameters) were included. In the development dataset, the optimism adjusted R2 was 0.13 and the optimism adjusted Royston D statistic was 0.79. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic in the validation dataset for the entire follow-up period was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.02) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.83), respectively. The prognostic model performed well in predicting outcomes in clinically relevant subgroups defined by age group, type of immune mediated inflammatory disease, and methotrexate dose. CONCLUSION A prognostic model was developed and validated that uses information collected during routine clinical care and may be used to risk stratify the frequency of monitoring blood test during long term methotrexate treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgina Nakafero
- Academic Rheumatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Matthew J Grainge
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Tim Card
- Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Maarten W Taal
- Centre for Kidney Research and Innovation, Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK
| | - Guruprasad P Aithal
- Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, Translational Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christopher P Fox
- Department of Haematology, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christian D Mallen
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | | | - Matthew D Stevenson
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Abhishek Abhishek
- Academic Rheumatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Pate A, Sperrin M, Riley RD, Sergeant JC, Van Staa T, Peek N, Mamas MA, Lip GYH, O'Flaherty M, Buchan I, Martin GP. Developing prediction models to estimate the risk of two survival outcomes both occurring: A comparison of techniques. Stat Med 2023. [PMID: 37218664 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Revised: 03/21/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study considers the prediction of the time until two survival outcomes have both occurred. We compared a variety of analytical methods motivated by a typical clinical problem of multimorbidity prognosis. METHODS We considered five methods: product (multiply marginal risks), dual-outcome (directly model the time until both events occur), multistate models (msm), and a range of copula and frailty models. We assessed calibration and discrimination under a variety of simulated data scenarios, varying outcome prevalence, and the amount of residual correlation. The simulation focused on model misspecification and statistical power. Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we compared model performance when predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes both occurring. RESULTS Discrimination was similar for all methods. The product method was poorly calibrated in the presence of residual correlation. The msm and dual-outcome models were the most robust to model misspecification but suffered a drop in performance at small sample sizes due to overfitting, which the copula and frailty model were less susceptible to. The copula and frailty model's performance were highly dependent on the underlying data structure. In the clinical example, the product method was poorly calibrated when adjusting for 8 major cardiovascular risk factors. DISCUSSION We recommend the dual-outcome method for predicting the risk of two survival outcomes both occurring. It was the most robust to model misspecification, although was also the most prone to overfitting. The clinical example motivates the use of the methods considered in this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Pate
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Matthew Sperrin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jamie C Sergeant
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Tjeerd Van Staa
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Niels Peek
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Mamas A Mamas
- Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Gregory Y H Lip
- Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science at University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Martin O'Flaherty
- Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Iain Buchan
- Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Snell KIE, Levis B, Damen JAA, Dhiman P, Debray TPA, Hooft L, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM, Collins GS, Riley RD. Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA). BMJ 2023; 381:e073538. [PMID: 37137496 PMCID: PMC10155050 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kym I E Snell
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Brooke Levis
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Dhiman P, Ma J, Andaur Navarro CL, Speich B, Bullock G, Damen JAA, Hooft L, Kirtley S, Riley RD, Van Calster B, Moons KGM, Collins GS. Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 157:120-133. [PMID: 36935090 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2022] [Revised: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for individualized risk prediction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 1st January, 2019, and 5th September, 2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices. RESULTS We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion, or conclusion. CONCLUSION The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paula Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
| | - Jie Ma
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Benjamin Speich
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK; Meta-Research Centre, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Garrett Bullock
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Shona Kirtley
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, ST5 5BG
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; EPI-centre, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Pate A, Riley RD, Collins GS, van Smeden M, Van Calster B, Ensor J, Martin GP. Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model using multinomial logistic regression. Stat Methods Med Res 2023; 32:555-571. [PMID: 36660777 PMCID: PMC10012398 DOI: 10.1177/09622802231151220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
AIMS Multinomial logistic regression models allow one to predict the risk of a categorical outcome with > 2 categories. When developing such a model, researchers should ensure the number of participants (n ) is appropriate relative to the number of events (E k ) and the number of predictor parameters (p k ) for each category k. We propose three criteria to determine the minimum n required in light of existing criteria developed for binary outcomes. PROPOSED CRITERIA The first criterion aims to minimise the model overfitting. The second aims to minimise the difference between the observed and adjusted R 2 Nagelkerke. The third criterion aims to ensure the overall risk is estimated precisely. For criterion (i), we show the sample size must be based on the anticipated Cox-snell R 2 of distinct 'one-to-one' logistic regression models corresponding to the sub-models of the multinomial logistic regression, rather than on the overall Cox-snell R 2 of the multinomial logistic regression. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA We tested the performance of the proposed criteria (i) through a simulation study and found that it resulted in the desired level of overfitting. Criterion (ii) and (iii) were natural extensions from previously proposed criteria for binary outcomes and did not require evaluation through simulation. SUMMARY We illustrated how to implement the sample size criteria through a worked example considering the development of a multinomial risk prediction model for tumour type when presented with an ovarian mass. Code is provided for the simulation and worked example. We will embed our proposed criteria within the pmsampsize R library and Stata modules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Pate
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
- EPI-center, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Joie Ensor
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Lee SI, Hope H, O'Reilly D, Kent L, Santorelli G, Subramanian A, Moss N, Azcoaga-Lorenzo A, Fagbamigbe AF, Nelson-Piercy C, Yau C, McCowan C, Kennedy JI, Phillips K, Singh M, Mhereeg M, Cockburn N, Brocklehurst P, Plachcinski R, Riley RD, Thangaratinam S, Brophy S, Hemali Sudasinghe SPB, Agrawal U, Vowles Z, Abel KM, Nirantharakumar K, Black M, Eastwood KA. Maternal and child outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing multiple long-term conditions: protocol for an observational study in the UK. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e068718. [PMID: 36828655 PMCID: PMC9972454 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2022] [Accepted: 02/07/2023] [Indexed: 02/26/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION One in five pregnant women has multiple pre-existing long-term conditions in the UK. Studies have shown that maternal multiple long-term conditions are associated with adverse outcomes. This observational study aims to compare maternal and child outcomes for pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions to those without multiple long-term conditions (0 or 1 long-term conditions). METHODS AND ANALYSIS Pregnant women aged 15-49 years old with a conception date between 2000 and 2019 in the UK will be included with follow-up till 2019. The data source will be routine health records from all four UK nations (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (England), Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (Wales), Scotland routine health records and Northern Ireland Maternity System) and the Born in Bradford birth cohort. The exposure of two or more pre-existing, long-term physical or mental health conditions will be defined from a list of health conditions predetermined by women and clinicians. The association of maternal multiple long-term conditions with (a) antenatal, (b) peripartum, (c) postnatal and long-term and (d) mental health outcomes, for both women and their children will be examined. Outcomes of interest will be guided by a core outcome set. Comparisons will be made between pregnant women with and without multiple long-term conditions using modified Poisson and Cox regression. Generalised estimating equation will account for the clustering effect of women who had more than one pregnancy episode. Where appropriate, multiple imputation with chained equation will be used for missing data. Federated analysis will be conducted for each dataset and results will be pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Approval has been obtained from the respective data sources in each UK nation. Study findings will be submitted for publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented at key conferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siang Ing Lee
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Holly Hope
- Centre for Women's Mental Health, Faculty of Biology Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Dermot O'Reilly
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Lisa Kent
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Gillian Santorelli
- Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Bradford, UK
| | | | - Ngawai Moss
- Patient and Public Representative, London, UK
| | - Amaya Azcoaga-Lorenzo
- Division of Population and Behavioural Sciences, University of St Andrews School of Medicine, St Andrews, UK
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Fundación Jimenez Diaz, Hospital Rey Juan Carlos, Mostoles, Spain
| | - Adeniyi Francis Fagbamigbe
- Division of Population and Behavioural Sciences, University of St Andrews School of Medicine, St Andrews, UK
- Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Ibadan College of Medicine, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | | | - Christopher Yau
- Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Health Data Research UK, London, UK
| | - Colin McCowan
- Division of Population and Behavioural Sciences, University of St Andrews School of Medicine, St Andrews, UK
| | | | - Katherine Phillips
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Megha Singh
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mohamed Mhereeg
- Data Science, Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Neil Cockburn
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Peter Brocklehurst
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, University of Birmingham Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sinead Brophy
- Data Science, Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | | | - Utkarsh Agrawal
- Division of Population and Behavioural Sciences, University of St Andrews School of Medicine, St Andrews, UK
| | - Zoe Vowles
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kathryn Mary Abel
- Centre for Women's Mental Health, Faculty of Biology Medicine & Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Mairead Black
- Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Aberdeen School of Medicine Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Kelly-Ann Eastwood
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Debray TPA, Collins GS, Riley RD, Snell KIE, Van Calster B, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data: TRIPOD-Cluster checklist. BMJ 2023; 380:e071018. [PMID: 36750242 PMCID: PMC9903175 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Debray TPA, Collins GS, Riley RD, Snell KIE, Van Calster B, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2023; 380:e071058. [PMID: 36750236 PMCID: PMC9903176 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/07/2022] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- EPI-centre, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Hudda MT, Archer L, van Smeden M, Moons KGM, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Wahlich C, Reitsma JB, Riley RD, Van Calster B, Wynants L. Minimal reporting improvement after peer review in reports of COVID-19 prediction models: systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 154:75-84. [PMID: 36528232 PMCID: PMC9749392 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2022] [Revised: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 12/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess improvement in the completeness of reporting coronavirus (COVID-19) prediction models after the peer review process. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Studies included in a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, with both preprint and peer-reviewed published versions available, were assessed. The primary outcome was the change in percentage adherence to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) reporting guidelines between pre-print and published manuscripts. RESULTS Nineteen studies were identified including seven (37%) model development studies, two external validations of existing models (11%), and 10 (53%) papers reporting on both development and external validation of the same model. Median percentage adherence among preprint versions was 33% (min-max: 10 to 68%). The percentage adherence of TRIPOD components increased from preprint to publication in 11/19 studies (58%), with adherence unchanged in the remaining eight studies. The median change in adherence was just 3 percentage points (pp, min-max: 0-14 pp) across all studies. No association was observed between the change in percentage adherence and preprint score, journal impact factor, or time between journal submission and acceptance. CONCLUSIONS The preprint reporting quality of COVID-19 prediction modeling studies is poor and did not improve much after peer review, suggesting peer review had a trivial effect on the completeness of reporting during the pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed T Hudda
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK SW17 0RE.
| | - Lucinda Archer
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Charlotte Wahlich
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK SW17 0RE
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Laure Wynants
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Andaur Navarro CL, Damen JAA, van Smeden M, Takada T, Nijman SWJ, Dhiman P, Ma J, Collins GS, Bajpai R, Riley RD, Moons KGM, Hooft L. Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 154:8-22. [PMID: 36436815 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Revised: 10/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES We sought to summarize the study design, modelling strategies, and performance measures reported in studies on clinical prediction models developed using machine learning techniques. METHODS We search PubMed for articles published between 01/01/2018 and 31/12/2019, describing the development or the development with external validation of a multivariable prediction model using any supervised machine learning technique. No restrictions were made based on study design, data source, or predicted patient-related health outcomes. RESULTS We included 152 studies, 58 (38.2% [95% CI 30.8-46.1]) were diagnostic and 94 (61.8% [95% CI 53.9-69.2]) prognostic studies. Most studies reported only the development of prediction models (n = 133, 87.5% [95% CI 81.3-91.8]), focused on binary outcomes (n = 131, 86.2% [95% CI 79.8-90.8), and did not report a sample size calculation (n = 125, 82.2% [95% CI 75.4-87.5]). The most common algorithms used were support vector machine (n = 86/522, 16.5% [95% CI 13.5-19.9]) and random forest (n = 73/522, 14% [95% CI 11.3-17.2]). Values for area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve ranged from 0.45 to 1.00. Calibration metrics were often missed (n = 494/522, 94.6% [95% CI 92.4-96.3]). CONCLUSION Our review revealed that focus is required on handling of missing values, methods for internal validation, and reporting of calibration to improve the methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Toshihiko Takada
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Steven W J Nijman
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Paula Dhiman
- Center for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Jie Ma
- Center for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Center for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Ram Bajpai
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Sperrin M, Riley RD, Collins GS, Martin GP. Targeted validation: validating clinical prediction models in their intended population and setting. Diagn Progn Res 2022; 6:24. [PMID: 36550534 PMCID: PMC9773429 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-022-00136-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 11/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical prediction models must be appropriately validated before they can be used. While validation studies are sometimes carefully designed to match an intended population/setting of the model, it is common for validation studies to take place with arbitrary datasets, chosen for convenience rather than relevance. We call estimating how well a model performs within the intended population/setting "targeted validation". Use of this term sharpens the focus on the intended use of a model, which may increase the applicability of developed models, avoid misleading conclusions, and reduce research waste. It also exposes that external validation may not be required when the intended population for the model matches the population used to develop the model; here, a robust internal validation may be sufficient, especially if the development dataset was large.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Sperrin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tim J Cole
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | - Jon Deeks
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jamie J Kirkham
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Rafael Perera
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Angie Wade
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Archer L, Koshiaris C, Lay-Flurrie S, Snell KIE, Riley RD, Stevens R, Banerjee A, Usher-Smith JA, Clegg A, Payne RA, Hobbs FDR, McManus RJ, Sheppard JP. Development and external validation of a risk prediction model for falls in patients with an indication for antihypertensive treatment: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2022; 379:e070918. [PMID: 36347531 PMCID: PMC9641577 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop and externally validate the STRAtifying Treatments In the multi-morbid Frail elderlY (STRATIFY)-Falls clinical prediction model to identify the risk of hospital admission or death from a fall in patients with an indication for antihypertensive treatment. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Primary care data from electronic health records contained within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 40 years or older with at least one blood pressure measurement between 130 mm Hg and 179 mm Hg. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE First serious fall, defined as hospital admission or death with a primary diagnosis of a fall within 10 years of the index date (12 months after cohort entry). Model development was conducted using a Fine-Gray approach in data from CPRD GOLD, accounting for the competing risk of death from other causes, with subsequent recalibration at one, five, and 10 years using pseudo values. External validation was conducted using data from CPRD Aurum, with performance assessed through calibration curves and the observed to expected ratio, C statistic, and D statistic, pooled across general practices, and clinical utility using decision curve analysis at thresholds around 10%. RESULTS Analysis included 1 772 600 patients (experiencing 62 691 serious falls) from CPRD GOLD used in model development, and 3 805 366 (experiencing 206 956 serious falls) from CPRD Aurum in the external validation. The final model consisted of 24 predictors, including age, sex, ethnicity, alcohol consumption, living in an area of high social deprivation, a history of falls, multiple sclerosis, and prescriptions of antihypertensives, antidepressants, hypnotics, and anxiolytics. Upon external validation, the recalibrated model showed good discrimination, with pooled C statistics of 0.833 (95% confidence interval 0.831 to 0.835) and 0.843 (0.841 to 0.844) at five and 10 years, respectively. Original model calibration was poor on visual inspection and although this was improved with recalibration, under-prediction of risk remained (observed to expected ratio at 10 years 1.839, 95% confidence interval 1.811 to 1.865). Nevertheless, decision curve analysis suggests potential clinical utility, with net benefit larger than other strategies. CONCLUSIONS This prediction model uses commonly recorded clinical characteristics and distinguishes well between patients at high and low risk of falls in the next 1-10 years. Although miscalibration was evident on external validation, the model still had potential clinical utility around risk thresholds of 10% and so could be useful in routine clinical practice to help identify those at high risk of falls who might benefit from closer monitoring or early intervention to prevent future falls. Further studies are needed to explore the appropriate thresholds that maximise the model's clinical utility and cost effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucinda Archer
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Constantinos Koshiaris
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Sarah Lay-Flurrie
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Richard Stevens
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Amitava Banerjee
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK
| | - Juliet A Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Andrew Clegg
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, University of Leeds, UK
| | - Rupert A Payne
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - F D Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Richard J McManus
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - James P Sheppard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Riley RD, Hattle M, Collins GS, Whittle R, Ensor J. Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome. Stat Med 2022; 41:4822-4837. [PMID: 35932153 PMCID: PMC9805219 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2022] [Revised: 06/30/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Before embarking on an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project, researchers and funders need assurance it is worth their time and cost. This should include consideration of how many studies are promising their IPD and, given the characteristics of these studies, the power of an IPDMA including them. Here, we show how to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA of randomized trials to examine treatment-covariate interactions at the participant level (ie, treatment effect modifiers). We focus on a binary outcome with binary or continuous covariates, and propose a three-step approach, which assumes the true interaction size is common to all trials. In step one, the user must specify a minimally important interaction size and, for each trial separately (eg, as obtained from trial publications), the following aggregate data: the number of participants and events in control and treatment groups, the mean and SD for each continuous covariate, and the proportion of participants in each category for each binary covariate. This allows the variance of the interaction estimate to be calculated for each trial, using an analytic solution for Fisher's information matrix from a logistic regression model. Step 2 calculates the variance of the summary interaction estimate from the planned IPDMA (equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverse trial variances from step 1), and step 3 calculates the corresponding power based on a two-sided Wald test. Stata and R code are provided, and two examples given for illustration. Extension to allow for between-study heterogeneity is also considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard D. Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of MedicineKeele UniversityKeeleStaffordshireUK
| | - Miriam Hattle
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of MedicineKeele UniversityKeeleStaffordshireUK
| | - Gary S. Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
| | - Rebecca Whittle
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of MedicineKeele UniversityKeeleStaffordshireUK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of MedicineKeele UniversityKeeleStaffordshireUK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Hudda MT, Wells JCK, Adair LS, Alvero-Cruz JRA, Ashby-Thompson MN, Ballesteros-Vásquez MN, Barrera-Exposito J, Caballero B, Carnero EA, Cleghorn GJ, Davies PSW, Desmond M, Devakumar D, Gallagher D, Guerrero-Alcocer EV, Haschke F, Horlick M, Ben Jemaa H, Khan AI, Mankai A, Monyeki MA, Nashandi HL, Ortiz-Hernandez L, Plasqui G, Reichert FF, Robles-Sardin AE, Rush E, Shypailo RJ, Sobiecki JG, Ten Hoor GA, Valdés J, Wickramasinghe VP, Wong WW, Riley RD, Owen CG, Whincup PH, Nightingale CM. External validation of a prediction model for estimating fat mass in children and adolescents in 19 countries: individual participant data meta-analysis. BMJ 2022; 378:e071185. [PMID: 36130780 PMCID: PMC9490487 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the performance of a UK based prediction model for estimating fat-free mass (and indirectly fat mass) in children and adolescents in non-UK settings. DESIGN Individual participant data meta-analysis. SETTING 19 countries. PARTICIPANTS 5693 children and adolescents (49.7% boys) aged 4 to 15 years with complete data on the predictors included in the UK based model (weight, height, age, sex, and ethnicity) and on the independently assessed outcome measure (fat-free mass determined by deuterium dilution assessment). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The outcome of the UK based prediction model was natural log transformed fat-free mass (lnFFM). Predictive performance statistics of R2, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and root mean square error were assessed in each of the 19 countries and then pooled through random effects meta-analysis. Calibration plots were also derived for each country, including flexible calibration curves. RESULTS The model showed good predictive ability in non-UK populations of children and adolescents, providing R2 values of >75% in all countries and >90% in 11 of the 19 countries, and with good calibration (ie, agreement) of observed and predicted values. Root mean square error values (on fat-free mass scale) were <4 kg in 17 of the 19 settings. Pooled values (95% confidence intervals) of R2, calibration slope, and calibration-in-the-large were 88.7% (85.9% to 91.4%), 0.98 (0.97 to 1.00), and 0.01 (-0.02 to 0.04), respectively. Heterogeneity was evident in the R2 and calibration-in-the-large values across settings, but not in the calibration slope. Model performance did not vary markedly between boys and girls, age, ethnicity, and national income groups. To further improve the accuracy of the predictions, the model equation was recalibrated for the intercept in each setting so that country specific equations are available for future use. CONCLUSION The UK based prediction model, which is based on readily available measures, provides predictions of childhood fat-free mass, and hence fat mass, in a range of non-UK settings that explain a large proportion of the variability in observed fat-free mass, and exhibit good calibration performance, especially after recalibration of the intercept for each population. The model demonstrates good generalisability in both low-middle income and high income populations of healthy children and adolescents aged 4-15 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed T Hudda
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK
| | - Jonathan C K Wells
- Population, Policy, and Practice Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | - Linda S Adair
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Schools of Public Health and Medicine, NC, USA
| | | | - Maxine N Ashby-Thompson
- Department of Pediatrics, New York Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Jesus Barrera-Exposito
- Biodynamic and Body Composition Laboratory, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
| | - Benjamin Caballero
- Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Elvis A Carnero
- Translational Research Institute, Adventhealth Orlando, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Geoff J Cleghorn
- Child Health Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Peter S W Davies
- Child Health Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Malgorzata Desmond
- Population, Policy, and Practice Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | | | - Dympna Gallagher
- Department of Medicine and Institute Human Nutrition, Division of Endocrinology, New York Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Elvia V Guerrero-Alcocer
- Centro Universitario UAEM Amecameca, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Amecameca de Juárez, Mexico
| | | | - Mary Horlick
- Body Composition Unit, St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Houda Ben Jemaa
- Nutrition Department, Higher School of Health Sciences and Techniques, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
| | - Ashraful I Khan
- International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Amani Mankai
- Nutrition Department, Higher School of Health Sciences and Techniques, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
| | - Makama A Monyeki
- Physical Activity, Sport, and Recreation Research Focus Area (PhASRec), Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
| | - Hilde L Nashandi
- School of Nursing and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia
| | - Luis Ortiz-Hernandez
- Departamento de Atención a la Salud, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Guy Plasqui
- Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Felipe F Reichert
- Postgraduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
| | - Alma E Robles-Sardin
- Coordinación de Nutrición, Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, Hermosillo, Mexico
| | - Elaine Rush
- Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Roman J Shypailo
- Baylor College of Medicine, USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jakub G Sobiecki
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Gill A Ten Hoor
- Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Jesús Valdés
- Departamento de Bioquímica, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | - William W Wong
- Baylor College of Medicine, USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Christopher G Owen
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK
| | - Peter H Whincup
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK
| | - Claire M Nightingale
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Riley RD, Dias S, Donegan S, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Efthimiou O, Phillippo DM. Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022; 28:197-203. [PMID: 35948411 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111931] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
A network meta-analysis combines the evidence from existing randomised trials about the comparative efficacy of multiple treatments. It allows direct and indirect evidence about each comparison to be included in the same analysis, and provides a coherent framework to compare and rank treatments. A traditional network meta-analysis uses aggregate data (eg, treatment effect estimates and standard errors) obtained from publications or trial investigators. An alternative approach is to obtain, check, harmonise and meta-analyse the individual participant data (IPD) from each trial. In this article, we describe potential advantages of IPD for network meta-analysis projects, emphasising five key benefits: (1) improving the quality and scope of information available for inclusion in the meta-analysis, (2) examining and plotting distributions of covariates across trials (eg, for potential effect modifiers), (3) standardising and improving the analysis of each trial, (4) adjusting for prognostic factors to allow a network meta-analysis of conditional treatment effects and (5) including treatment-covariate interactions (effect modifiers) to allow relative treatment effects to vary by participant-level covariate values (eg, age, baseline depression score). A running theme of all these benefits is that they help examine and reduce heterogeneity (differences in the true treatment effect between trials) and inconsistency (differences in the true treatment effect between direct and indirect evidence) in the network. As a consequence, an IPD network meta-analysis has the potential for more precise, reliable and informative results for clinical practice and even allows treatment comparisons to be made for individual patients and targeted populations conditional on their particular characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sofia Dias
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| | - Sarah Donegan
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Lesley A Stewart
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| | - Orestis Efthimiou
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPMU), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - David M Phillippo
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Moriarty AS, Meader N, Snell KIE, Riley RD, Paton LW, Dawson S, Hendon J, Chew-Graham CA, Gilbody S, Churchill R, Phillips RS, Ali S, McMillan D. Predicting relapse or recurrence of depression: systematic review of prognostic models. Br J Psychiatry 2022; 221:448-458. [PMID: 35048843 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2021.218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Relapse and recurrence of depression are common, contributing to the overall burden of depression globally. Accurate prediction of relapse or recurrence while patients are well would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may effectively guide the allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. AIMS To review prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults with remitted major depressive disorder. METHOD We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2021. We included development and external validation studies of multivariable prognostic models. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). RESULTS We identified 12 eligible prognostic model studies (11 unique prognostic models): 8 model development-only studies, 3 model development and external validation studies and 1 external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available and meta-analysis was therefore not necessary. Eleven out of the 12 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias and none examined clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS Due to high risk of bias of the included studies, poor predictive performance and limited external validation of the models identified, presently available clinical prediction models for relapse and recurrence of depression are not yet sufficiently developed for deploying in clinical settings. There is a need for improved prognosis research in this clinical area and future studies should conform to best practice methodological and reporting guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew S Moriarty
- Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK and Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
| | - Nicholas Meader
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK and Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, University of York, UK
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, UK
| | - Lewis W Paton
- Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK
| | - Sarah Dawson
- Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, University of York, UK and Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - Jessica Hendon
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK and Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, University of York, UK
| | | | - Simon Gilbody
- Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK and Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
| | - Rachel Churchill
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK and Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, University of York, UK
| | | | - Shehzad Ali
- Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Canada
| | - Dean McMillan
- Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK and Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
| |
Collapse
|