Search

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None.

Continuous predictors are routinely encountered when developing a prognostic model. Investigators, who are often non-statisticians, must decide how to handle continuous predictors in their models. Categorising continuous measurements into two or more categories has been widely discredited, yet is still frequently done because of its simplicity, investigator ignorance of the potential impact and of suitable alternatives, or to facilitate model uptake. We examine three broad approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model, including various methods of categorising predictors, modelling a linear relationship between the predictor and outcome and modelling a nonlinear relationship using fractional polynomials or restricted cubic splines. We compare the performance (measured by the c-index, calibration and net benefit) of prognostic models built using each approach, evaluating them using separate data from that used to build them. We show that categorising continuous predictors produces models with poor predictive performance and poor clinical usefulness. Categorising continuous predictors is unnecessary, biologically implausible and inefficient and should not be used in prognostic model development. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (© 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

After developing a prognostic model, it is essential to evaluate the performance of the model in samples independent from those used to develop the model, which is often referred to as external validation. However, despite its importance, very little is known about the sample size requirements for conducting an external validation. Using a large real data set and resampling methods, we investigate the impact of sample size on the performance of six published prognostic models. Focussing on unbiased and precise estimation of performance measures (e.g. the c-index, D statistic and calibration), we provide guidance on sample size for investigators designing an external validation study. Our study suggests that externally validating a prognostic model requires a minimum of 100 events and ideally 200 (or more) events., (© 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Context: Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed., Objective: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes., Evidence Acquisition: This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors., Evidence Synthesis: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document., Conclusions: To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org)., Patient Summary: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diagnosis is the traditional basis for decision-making in clinical practice. Evidence is often lacking about future benefits and harms of these decisions for patients diagnosed with and without disease. We propose that a model of clinical practice focused on patient prognosis and predicting the likelihood of future outcomes may be more useful., Discussion: Disease diagnosis can provide crucial information for clinical decisions that influence outcome in serious acute illness. However, the central role of diagnosis in clinical practice is challenged by evidence that it does not always benefit patients and that factors other than disease are important in determining patient outcome. The concept of disease as a dichotomous 'yes' or 'no' is challenged by the frequent use of diagnostic indicators with continuous distributions, such as blood sugar, which are better understood as contributing information about the probability of a patient's future outcome. Moreover, many illnesses, such as chronic fatigue, cannot usefully be labelled from a disease-diagnosis perspective. In such cases, a prognostic model provides an alternative framework for clinical practice that extends beyond disease and diagnosis and incorporates a wide range of information to predict future patient outcomes and to guide decisions to improve them. Such information embraces non-disease factors and genetic and other biomarkers which influence outcome., Summary: Patient prognosis can provide the framework for modern clinical practice to integrate information from the expanding biological, social, and clinical database for more effective and efficient care.

Background: Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed., Methods: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors., Results: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document., Conclusions: To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org)., (© 2015 The Authors.)

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

Prognostic factor research aims to identify factors associated with subsequent clinical outcome in people with a particular disease or health condition. In this article, the second in the PROGRESS series, the authors discuss the role of prognostic factors in current clinical practice, randomised trials, and developing new interventions, and explain why and how prognostic factor research should be improved.

Prognostic models are abundant in the medical literature yet their use in practice seems limited. In this article, the third in the PROGRESS series, the authors review how such models are developed and validated, and then address how prognostic models are assessed for their impact on practice and patient outcomes, illustrating these ideas with examples.

Background: Multiple imputation (MI) provides an effective approach to handle missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies, as it can properly account for the missing data uncertainty. The multiply imputed datasets are each analysed using standard prognostic modelling techniques to obtain the estimates of interest. The estimates from each imputed dataset are then combined into one overall estimate and variance, incorporating both the within and between imputation variability. Rubin's rules for combining these multiply imputed estimates are based on asymptotic theory. The resulting combined estimates may be more accurate if the posterior distribution of the population parameter of interest is better approximated by the normal distribution. However, the normality assumption may not be appropriate for all the parameters of interest when analysing prognostic modelling studies, such as predicted survival probabilities and model performance measures., Methods: Guidelines for combining the estimates of interest when analysing prognostic modelling studies are provided. A literature review is performed to identify current practice for combining such estimates in prognostic modelling studies., Results: Methods for combining all reported estimates after MI were not well reported in the current literature. Rubin's rules without applying any transformations were the standard approach used, when any method was stated., Conclusion: The proposed simple guidelines for combining estimates after MI may lead to a wider and more appropriate use of MI in future prognostic modelling studies.

Deficiencies in how research studies are reported are both well-documented and widespread across all medical specialties and study designs. Although randomised trials have received the most attention in this regard, similar concerns have been expressed about reporting of other types of research including diagnostic and epidemiological studies. If a journal article describes in enough detail what was done at each stage of a study, readers will have enough information to allow them to decide on the merits of the results for themselves. From this simple idea comes the scientific rationale of developing guidelines on how to report research. Recommended processes to produce reporting guidelines have evolved over several years during the preparation of a sequence of reporting guidelines starting with CONSORT and QUOROM in the 1990s. We describe initiatives to develop reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) and tumour marker prognostic studies (REMARK).

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Carl Moons and colleagues provide a checklist and background explanation for critically appraising and extracting data from systematic reviews of prognostic and diagnostic prediction modelling studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite its rarity, the prognosis of pancreatic cancer is very poor and it is a major cause of cancer mortality; being ranked fourth in the world, it has one of the worst survival rates of any cancer. Aim To evaluate the performance of QCancer® (Pancreas) for predicting the absolute risk of pancreatic cancer in an independent UK cohort of patients, from general practice records. Design and setting Prospective cohort study to evaluate the performance QCancer (Pancreas) prediction models in 364 practices from the UK, contributing to The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Method Records were extracted from the THIN database for 2.15 million patients registered with a general practice surgery between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2008, aged 30-84 years (3.74 million person-years), with 618 pancreatic cancer cases. Pancreatic cancer was defined as incident diagnosis of pancreatic cancer during the 2 years after study entry. Results The results from this independent and external validation of QCancer (Pancreas) demonstrated good performance data on a large cohort of general practice patients. QCancer (Pancreas) had very good discrimination properties, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 and 0.92 for females and males respectively. QCancer (Pancreas) explained 60% and 67% of the variation in females and males respectively. QCancer (Pancreas) over-predicted risk in both females and males, notably in older patients. Conclusion QCancer (Pancreas) is potentially useful for identifying undetected cases of pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which provides detailed explanations on the checklist items in the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK). It is inferred that the recommendations were developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Cancer Institute. An overview on the proper method of reporting prognostic marker research is provided.

Background: We investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures. Methods and Findings: We used a full hand search to identify all prediction studies published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals. We developed a comprehensive item list to systematically score conduct and reporting of the studies, based on recent recommendations for prediction research. Two reviewers independently scored the studies. We retrieved 71 papers for full text review: 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three addressed an external validation of a previously developed model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design was unclear in 15% of studies, and a prospective cohort was used in most studies (60%). Descriptions of the participants and definitions of predictor and outcome were generally good. Despite many recommendations against doing so, continuous predictors were often dichotomized (32% of studies). The number of events per predictor as a measure of statistical power could not be determined in 67% of the studies; of the remainder, 53% had fewer than the commonly recommended value of ten events per predictor. Methods for a priori selection of candidate predictors were described in most studies (68%). A substantial number of studies relied on a p-value cut-off of p<0.05 to select predictors in the multivariable analyses (29%). Predictive model performance measures, i.e., calibration and discrimination, were reported in 12% and 27% of studies, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of prediction studies in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is no consensus on the most appropriate approach to handle missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies. Therefore a simulation study was performed to assess the effects of different missing data techniques on the performance of a prognostic model. Methods: Datasets were generated to resemble the skewed distributions seen in a motivating breast cancer example. Multivariate missing data were imposed on four covariates using four different mechanisms; missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), missing not at random (MNAR) and a combination of all three mechanisms. Five amounts of incomplete cases from 5% to 75% were considered. Complete case analysis (CC), single imputation (SI) and five multiple imputation (MI) techniques available within the R statistical software were investigated: a) data augmentation (DA) approach assuming a multivariate normal distribution, b) DA assuming a general location model, c) regression switching imputation, d) regression switching with predictive mean matching (MICE-PMM) and e) flexible additive imputation models. A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted and appropriate estimates for the regression coefficients and model performance measures were obtained. Results: Performing a CC analysis produced unbiased regression estimates, but inflated standard errors, which affected the significance of the covariates in the model with 25% or more missingness. Using SI, underestimated the variability; resulting in poor coverage even with 10% missingness. Of the MI approaches, applying MICE-PMM produced, in general, the least biased estimates and better coverage for the incomplete covariates and better model performance for all mechanisms. However, this MI approach still produced biased regression coefficient estimates for the incomplete skewed continuous covariates when 50% or more cases had missing data imposed with a MCAR, MAR or combined mechanism. When the missingness depended on the incomplete covariates, i.e. MNAR, estimates were biased with more than 10% incomplete cases for all MI approaches. Conclusion: The results from this simulation study suggest that performing MICE-PMM may be the preferred MI approach provided that less than 50% of the cases have missing data and the missing data are not MNAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When developing prognostic models in medicine, covariate data are often missing and the standard response is to exclude those individuals whose data are incomplete from the analyses. This practice leads to a reduction in the statistical power, and may lead to biased results. We wished to develop a prognostic model for overall survival from 1,189 primary cases (842 deaths) of epithelial ovarian cancer. A complete case analysis restricted the sample size to 518 (380 deaths). After applying a multiple imputation (MI) framework we included three real values for each one imputed, and constructed a model composed of more statistically significant prognostic factors and with increased predictive ability. Missing values can be imputed in cases where the reason for the data being missing is known, particularly where it can be explained by available data. This will increase the power of an analysis and may produce models that are more statistically reliable and applicable within clinical practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Opinion. Comments on the clinical acceptability of prognostic models. Reasons why doctors reject the publication of prognostic models; Clinical credibility of the model; Evidence of accuracy; Evidence of generality; Evidence of clinical effectiveness.

The author discusses several recommendations in the assessment of new clinical measurement methods. He emphasizes the importance of good quality measurements to achieve reliable diagnosis and prognosis. He tackles how the comparison of a new clinical method with a standard method should be implemented. He details the findings of a study by S. P. A. Nicolaï et al, published within the issue, on the measurements of ankle branchial index (ABI).

The article presents a response to the creation reporting guidelines for tumor marker prognostic studies. The authors cited that there are serious differences in the quality of reporting of tumor marker studies. He wants to maintain his position that, more is better, only when the data are of good quality.