Externally validated clinical prediction models for estimating treatment outcomes for patients with a mood, anxiety or psychotic disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY BJPsych Open Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1192/bjo.2024.789
Desi G Burghoorn, Sanne H Booij, Robert A Schoevers, Harriëtte Riese
{"title":"Externally validated clinical prediction models for estimating treatment outcomes for patients with a mood, anxiety or psychotic disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Desi G Burghoorn, Sanne H Booij, Robert A Schoevers, Harriëtte Riese","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2024.789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suboptimal treatment outcomes contribute to the high disease burden of mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders. Clinical prediction models could optimise treatment allocation, which may result in better outcomes. Whereas ample research on prediction models is performed, model performance in other clinical contexts (i.e. external validation) is rarely examined. This gap hampers generalisability and as such implementation in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Systematically appraise studies on externally validated clinical prediction models for estimated treatment outcomes for mood, anxiety and psychotic disorders by (1) reviewing methodological quality and applicability of studies and (2) investigating how model properties relate to differences in model performance.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022307987). A search was conducted on 8 November 2021 in the databases PubMED, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to examine between-study heterogeneity in discriminative performance and its relevant influencing factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight studies were included. The majority of studies (<i>n</i> = 16) validated models for mood disorders. Clinical predictors (e.g. symptom severity) were most frequently included (<i>n</i> = 25). Low methodological and applicability concerns were found for two studies. The overall discrimination performance of the meta-analysis was fair with wide prediction intervals (0.72 [0.46; 0.89]). The between-study heterogeneity was not explained by number or type of predictors but by disorder diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Few models seem ready for further implementation in clinical practice to aid treatment allocation. Besides the need for more external validation studies, we recommend close examination of the clinical setting before model implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"10 6","pages":"e221"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698186/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2024.789","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Suboptimal treatment outcomes contribute to the high disease burden of mood, anxiety or psychotic disorders. Clinical prediction models could optimise treatment allocation, which may result in better outcomes. Whereas ample research on prediction models is performed, model performance in other clinical contexts (i.e. external validation) is rarely examined. This gap hampers generalisability and as such implementation in clinical practice.

Aims: Systematically appraise studies on externally validated clinical prediction models for estimated treatment outcomes for mood, anxiety and psychotic disorders by (1) reviewing methodological quality and applicability of studies and (2) investigating how model properties relate to differences in model performance.

Method: The review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022307987). A search was conducted on 8 November 2021 in the databases PubMED, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to examine between-study heterogeneity in discriminative performance and its relevant influencing factors.

Results: Twenty-eight studies were included. The majority of studies (n = 16) validated models for mood disorders. Clinical predictors (e.g. symptom severity) were most frequently included (n = 25). Low methodological and applicability concerns were found for two studies. The overall discrimination performance of the meta-analysis was fair with wide prediction intervals (0.72 [0.46; 0.89]). The between-study heterogeneity was not explained by number or type of predictors but by disorder diagnosis.

Conclusions: Few models seem ready for further implementation in clinical practice to aid treatment allocation. Besides the need for more external validation studies, we recommend close examination of the clinical setting before model implementation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估情绪、焦虑或精神病患者治疗结果的外部验证临床预测模型:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:次优治疗结果导致情绪、焦虑或精神障碍的高疾病负担。临床预测模型可以优化治疗分配,从而获得更好的治疗效果。尽管对预测模型进行了大量的研究,但模型在其他临床背景下的表现(即外部验证)很少得到检验。这一差距阻碍了临床实践的普遍性和实施。目的:通过(1)回顾研究的方法学质量和适用性,以及(2)调查模型属性与模型性能差异之间的关系,系统地评估外部验证的用于估计情绪、焦虑和精神障碍治疗结果的临床预测模型的研究。方法:在PROSPERO进行前瞻性注册(注册号CRD42022307987)。检索于2021年11月8日在PubMED、PsycINFO和EMBASE数据库中进行。采用随机效应荟萃分析和元回归分析,检验辨别力及其相关影响因素的研究间异质性。结果:纳入28项研究。大多数研究(n = 16)验证了情绪障碍的模型。临床预测因素(如症状严重程度)最常被纳入(n = 25)。发现两项研究的方法学和适用性问题较低。meta分析的总体判别效果尚可,预测区间较宽(0.72 [0.46;0.89])。研究间的异质性不是由预测因子的数量或类型来解释,而是由疾病诊断来解释。结论:很少有模型可以在临床实践中进一步实施,以辅助治疗分配。除了需要更多的外部验证研究外,我们建议在模型实施之前仔细检查临床环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
期刊最新文献
Emetophobia appears to be the most common specific phobia that requires treatment. The association between violence exposure and general and cause-specific mortality in people using mental health services: cohort study. Distinct subcortical neuroanatomic profiles of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: structural magnetic resonance imaging study. Assessing the mental health literacy of young adults from rural and urban communities in Malawi. A new psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family): longer-term outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1