Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies.
Damen, Johanna A A; Moons, Karel G M; van Smeden, Maarten; Hooft, Lotty.
Afiliación
  • Damen JAA; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Electronic address: J.A.A.Damen@umcutrecht.nl.
  • Moons KGM; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
  • van Smeden M; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
  • Hooft L; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 29(4): 434-440, 2023 Apr.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35934199
BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are typically developed to estimate the risk that an individual in a particular health state will develop a particular health outcome, to support (shared) decision making. Systematic reviews of prognostic model studies can help identify prognostic models that need to further be validated or are ready to be implemented in healthcare. OBJECTIVES: To provide a step-by-step guidance on how to conduct and read a systematic review of prognostic model studies and to provide an overview of methodology and guidance available for every step of the review progress. SOURCES: Published, peer-reviewed guidance articles. CONTENT: We describe the following steps for conducting a systematic review of prognosis studies: 1) Developing the review question using the Population, Index model, Comparator model, Outcome(s), Timing, Setting format, 2) Searching and selection of articles, 3) Data extraction using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist, 4) Quality and risk of bias assessment using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment (PROBAST) tool, 5) Analysing data and undertaking quantitative meta-analysis, and 6) Presenting summary of findings, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions. Guidance for each step is described and illustrated using a case study on prognostic models for patients with COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: Guidance for conducting a systematic review of prognosis studies is available, but the implications of these reviews for clinical practice and further research highly depend on complete reporting of primary studies.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Microbiol Infect Asunto de la revista: DOENCAS TRANSMISSIVEIS / MICROBIOLOGIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Microbiol Infect Asunto de la revista: DOENCAS TRANSMISSIVEIS / MICROBIOLOGIA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido