Universität zu Köln

Foroutan, Farid, Guyatt, Gordon, Trivella, Marialena ORCID: 0000-0003-4492-1760, Kreuzberger, Nina ORCID: 0000-0001-8922-0488, Skoetz, Nicole, Riley, Richard D., Roshanov, Pavel S., Alba, Ana Carolina, Sekercioglu, Nigar, Canelo-Aybar, Carlos, Munn, Zachary, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, Schunemann, Holger J. and Iorio, Alfonso (2022). GRADE concept paper 2: Concepts for judging certainty on the calibration of prognostic models in a body of validation studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 143. S. 202 - 212. NEW YORK: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. ISSN 1878-5921

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Background: Prognostic models combine several prognostic factors to provide an estimate of the likelihood (or risk) of future events in individual patients, conditional on their prognostic factor values. A fundamental part of evaluating prognostic models is undertaking studies to determine whether their predictive performance, such as calibration and discrimination, is reproduced across settings. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies evaluating prognostic models' performance are a necessary step for selection of models for clinical practice and for testing the underlying assumption that their use will improve outcomes, including patient's reassurance and optimal future planning.Methods: In this paper, we highlight key concepts in evaluating the certainty of evidence regarding the calibration of prognostic models.Results and Conclusion: Four concepts are key to evaluating the certainty of evidence on prognostic models' performance regarding calibration. The first concept is that the inference regarding calibration may take one of two forms: deciding whether one is rating certainty that a model's performance is satisfactory or, instead, unsatisfactory, in either case defining the threshold for satisfactory (or unsatisfactory) model performance. Second, inconsistency is the critical GRADE domain to deciding whether we are rating certainty in the model performance being satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Third, depending on whether one is rating certainty in satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance, different patterns of inconsistency of results across studies will inform ratings of certainty of evidence. Fourth, exploring the distribution of point estimates of observed to expected ratio across individual studies, and its determinants, will bear on the need for and direction of future research.(c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID ORCID Put Code Foroutan, Farid UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Guyatt, Gordon UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Trivella, Marialena UNSPECIFIED orcid.org/0000-0003-4492-1760 UNSPECIFIED Kreuzberger, Nina UNSPECIFIED orcid.org/0000-0001-8922-0488 UNSPECIFIED Skoetz, Nicole UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Riley, Richard D. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Roshanov, Pavel S. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Alba, Ana Carolina UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Sekercioglu, Nigar UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Canelo-Aybar, Carlos UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Munn, Zachary UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Brignardello-Petersen, Romina UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Schunemann, Holger J. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Iorio, Alfonso UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-688732
DOI:	10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.024
Journal or Publication Title:	J. Clin. Epidemiol.
Volume:	143
Page Range:	S. 202 - 212
Date:	2022
Publisher:	ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Place of Publication:	NEW YORK
ISSN:	1878-5921
Language:	English
Faculty:	Unspecified
Divisions:	Unspecified
Subjects:	no entry
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Keywords Language CLINICAL-PREDICTION MODELS; RISK; APPLICABILITY; PROBAST; BIAS; TOOL Multiple languages Health Care Sciences & Services; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Multiple languages
URI:	http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/68873