The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis.

IF 3.9 3区医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1186/s12874-025-02516-2

Peijing Yan, Zhengxing Xu, Xu Hui, Xiajing Chu, Yizhuo Chen, Chao Yang, Shixi Xu, Huijie Cui, Li Zhang, Wenqiang Zhang, Liqun Wang, Yanqiu Zou, Yan Ren, Jiaqiang Liao, Qin Zhang, Kehu Yang, Ling Zhang, Yunjie Liu, Jiayuan Li, Chunxia Yang, Yuqin Yao, Zhenmi Liu, Xia Jiang, Ben Zhang

{"title":"The reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction models for cancer prognosis.","authors":"Peijing Yan, Zhengxing Xu, Xu Hui, Xiajing Chu, Yizhuo Chen, Chao Yang, Shixi Xu, Huijie Cui, Li Zhang, Wenqiang Zhang, Liqun Wang, Yanqiu Zou, Yan Ren, Jiaqiang Liao, Qin Zhang, Kehu Yang, Ling Zhang, Yunjie Liu, Jiayuan Li, Chunxia Yang, Yuqin Yao, Zhenmi Liu, Xia Jiang, Ben Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02516-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis.Methods: Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were used to assess reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively.Results: A total of 34 DPM studies were identified since the first publication in 2005, the main modeling methods for DPMs included the landmark model and the joint model. Regarding the reporting quality, the median overall TRIPOD adherence score was 75%. The TRIPOD items were poorly reported, especially the title (23.53%), model specification, including presentation (55.88%) and interpretation (50%) of the DPM usage, and implications for clinical use and future research (29.41%). Concerning methodological quality, most studies were of low quality (n = 30) or unclear (n = 3), mainly due to statistical analysis issues.Conclusions: The Landmark model and joint model show potential in DPM. The suboptimal reporting and methodological qualities of current DPM studies should be improved to facilitate clinical application.","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11872325/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02516-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of dynamic prediction model (DPM) studies on cancer prognosis.

Methods: Extensive search for DPM studies on cancer prognosis was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) were used to assess reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively.

Results: A total of 34 DPM studies were identified since the first publication in 2005, the main modeling methods for DPMs included the landmark model and the joint model. Regarding the reporting quality, the median overall TRIPOD adherence score was 75%. The TRIPOD items were poorly reported, especially the title (23.53%), model specification, including presentation (55.88%) and interpretation (50%) of the DPM usage, and implications for clinical use and future research (29.41%). Concerning methodological quality, most studies were of low quality (n = 30) or unclear (n = 3), mainly due to statistical analysis issues.

Conclusions: The Landmark model and joint model show potential in DPM. The suboptimal reporting and methodological qualities of current DPM studies should be improved to facilitate clinical application.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

癌症预后动态预测模型的报告质量和方法质量。

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

BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

6.50

自引率

2.50%

发文量

298

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.