Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction models, serve different purposes, and this should be reflected in how the results of systematic prediction reviews are summarized.
Objective: To investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies.
Study selection: 41 systematic reviews of outcome prediction studies in English listed in MEDLINE between October 2005 and October 2009. Two review authors, using standardized forms for all reviews, independently assessed characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included.
Results: The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported uni-variable or multi-variable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in nine reviews; and 40 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses a range of different methods was used to present the results of outcome prediction studies.
Conclusion: Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results. Quantitative analysis is rarely performed, the nomenclature and reporting of primary studies is poor, and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies.
Objective: To investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies.
Study selection: 41 systematic reviews of outcome prediction studies in English listed in MEDLINE between October 2005 and October 2009. Two review authors, using standardized forms for all reviews, independently assessed characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included.
Results: The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported uni-variable or multi-variable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in nine reviews; and 40 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses a range of different methods was used to present the results of outcome prediction studies.
Conclusion: Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results. Quantitative analysis is rarely performed, the nomenclature and reporting of primary studies is poor, and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies.