An Appraisal of the Quality of Development and Reporting of Predictive Models in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review
- 28 June 2024
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Neurosurgery
- Vol. 96 (2) , 269-275
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Significant evidence has indicated that the reporting quality of novel predictive models is poor because of confounding by small data sets, inappropriate statistical analyses, and a lack of validation and reproducibility. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement was developed to increase the generalizability of predictive models. This study evaluated the quality of predictive models reported in neurosurgical literature through their compliance with the TRIPOD guidelines. METHODS: Articles reporting prediction models published in the top 5 neurosurgery journals by SCImago Journal Rank-2 (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, and Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry) between January 1st, 2018, and January 1st, 2023, were identified through a PubMed search strategy that combined terms related to machine learning and prediction modeling. These original research articles were analyzed against the TRIPOD criteria. RESULTS: A total of 110 articles were assessed with the TRIPOD checklist. The median compliance was 57.4% (IQR: 50.0%-66.7%). Models using machine learning-based models exhibited lower compliance on average compared with conventional learning-based models (57.1%, 50.0%-66.7% vs 68.1%, 50.2%-68.1%, P = .472). Among the TRIPOD criteria, the lowest compliance was observed in blinding the assessment of predictors and outcomes (n = 7, 12.7% and n = 10, 16.9%, respectively), including an informative title (n = 17, 15.6%) and reporting model performance measures such as confidence intervals (n = 27, 24.8%). Few studies provided sufficient information to allow for the external validation of results (n = 26, 25.7%). CONCLUSION: Published predictive models in neurosurgery commonly fall short of meeting the established guidelines laid out by TRIPOD for optimal development, validation, and reporting. This lack of compliance may represent the minor extent to which these models have been subjected to external validation or adopted into routine clinical practice in neurosurgery.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Appraising the Quality of Development and Reporting in Surgical Prediction ModelsJAMA Surgery, 2023
- Machine learning in vascular surgery: a systematic review and critical appraisalnpj Digital Medicine, 2022
- Machine learning in neurosurgery: a global surveyActa Neurochirurgica, 2020
- Machine Learning and Neurosurgical Outcome Prediction: A Systematic ReviewWorld Neurosurgery, 2018
- Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD StatementEuropean Urology, 2015
- Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible researchThe Lancet, 2014
- Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical researchThe Lancet, 2014
- A systematic review finds prediction models for chronic kidney disease were poorly reported and often developed using inappropriate methodsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2013
- Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Evaluating Prediction Models (But Were Too Afraid to Ask)Urology, 2010
- Clinical Prediction RulesA Review and Suggested Modifications of Methodological StandardsJAMA, 1997