"The definition of predictor and outcome variables in mortality prediction models: a scoping review and quality of reporting study".

Background: Mortality prediction models are promising tools for guiding clinical decision-making and resource allocation in intensive care units (ICUs). Clearly specified predictor and outcome variables are necessary to enable external validation and safe clinical application of prediction models. The objective of this study was to identify the predictor and outcome variables used in different mortality prediction models in the ICU and investigate their reporting.

Methods: For this scoping review, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Studies developed within a general ICU population reporting on prediction models with mortality as a primary or secondary outcome were eligible. The selection criteria were adopted from a review by Keuning et al. Predictor and outcome variables, variable characteristics (defined as units, definitions, moments of measurement and methods of measurement), and publication details (defined as first author, year of publication and title) were extracted from the included studies. Predictor and outcome variable categories were demographics, chronic disease, care logistics, acute diagnosis, clinical examination and physiological derangement, laboratory assessment, additional diagnostics, support and therapy, risk scores, and (mortality) outcomes.

Results: A total of 56 mortality prediction models containing 204 unique predictor and outcome variables were included. The predictor variables most frequently included in the models were age (40 times), admission type (27 times), and mechanical ventilation (21 times). We observed that single variables were measured with different units, according to different definitions, at a different moment, and with a different method of measurement in different studies. The reporting of the unit was mostly complete (98% overall, 95% in the laboratory assessment category), whereas the definition of the variable (74% overall, 63% in the chronic disease category) and method of measurement (70% overall, 34% in the demographics category) were most often lacking.

Conclusions: Accurate and transparent reporting of predictor and outcome variables is paramount to enhance reproducibility, model performance in different contexts, and validity. Since unclarity about the required input data may introduce bias and thereby affect model performance, this study advocates that prognostic ICU models can be improved by transparent and clear reporting of predictor and outcome variables and their characteristics.