Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
What proportion of clinical prediction models make it to clinical practice? Protocol for a two-track follow-up study of prediction model development publications
11
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is known that only a limited proportion of developed clinical prediction models (CPMs) are implemented and/or used in clinical practice. This may result in a large amount of research waste, even when considering that some CPMs may demonstrate poor performance. Cross-sectional estimates of the numbers of CPMs that have been developed, validated, evaluated for impact or utilized in practice, have been made in specific medical fields, but studies across multiple fields and studies following up the fate of CPMs are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have conducted a systematic search for prediction model studies published between January 1995 and December 2020 using the Pubmed and Embase databases, applying a validated search strategy. Taking random samples for every calendar year, abstracts and articles were screened until a target of 100 CPM development studies were identified. Next, we will perform a forward citation search of the resulting CPM development article cohort to identify articles on external validation, impact assessment or implementation of those CPMs. We will also invite the authors of the development studies to complete an online survey to track implementation and clinical utilization of the CPMs.We will conduct a descriptive synthesis of the included studies, using data from the forward citation search and online survey to quantify the proportion of developed models that are validated, assessed for their impact, implemented and/or used in patient care. We will conduct time-to-event analysis using Kaplan-Meier plots. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patient data are involved in the research. Most information will be extracted from published articles. We request written informed consent from the survey respondents. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. OSF REGISTRATION: (https://osf.io/nj8s9).
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)
2016 · 27.391 Zit.
pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves
2011 · 13.781 Zit.
APACHE II
1985 · 13.611 Zit.
Definitions for Sepsis and Organ Failure and Guidelines for the Use of Innovative Therapies in Sepsis
1992 · 13.186 Zit.
The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure
1996 · 11.515 Zit.