Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 13;29(5):983-989.
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac002.

Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review

Affiliations

Trends in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation: a systematic review

Cynthia Yang et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. .

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review aims to provide further insights into the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation over time. We focus on assessing the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators.

Materials and methods: We searched Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies that developed 1 or more multivariable prognostic prediction models using electronic health record (EHR) data published in the period 2009-2019.

Results: We identified 422 studies that developed a total of 579 clinical prediction models using EHR data. We observed a steep increase over the years in the number of developed models. The percentage of models externally validated in the same paper remained at around 10%. Throughout 2009-2019, for both the target population and the outcome definitions, code lists were provided for less than 20% of the models. For about half of the models that were developed using regression analysis, the final model was not completely presented.

Discussion: Overall, we observed limited improvement over time in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation. In particular, the prediction problem definition was often not clearly reported, and the final model was often not completely presented.

Conclusion: Improvement in the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators is still urgently needed to increase clinical adoption of developed models.

Keywords: clinical decision support; clinical prediction model; electronic health record; external validation; machine learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Trends in modeling methods.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Trends in model validation.

References

    1. Collins GS, de Groot JA, Dutton S, et al. External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 40. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Collins GS, Ogundimu EO, Altman DG. Sample size considerations for the external validation of a multivariable prognostic model: a resampling study. Stat Med 2016; 35 (2): 214–26. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Calster B, Wynants L, Timmerman D, et al. Predictive analytics in health care: how can we know it works? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (12): 1651–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonnett LJ, Snell KIE, Collins GS, et al. Guide to presenting clinical prediction models for use in clinical settings. BMJ 2019; 365: l737. - PubMed
    1. Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2012; 9 (5): e1001221. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types