Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement

Kaiser, Isabelle; Diehl, Katharina; Heppt, Markus V.; Mathes, Sonja; Pfahlberg, Annette; Steeb, Theresa; Uter, Wolfgang; Gefeller, Olaf

doi:10.3390/healthcare10020238

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Embracing reporting guidelines such as TRIPOD, can enhance future research reporting standards. 52 Second, none of the studies reported a decision curve analysis to assess the clinical implications of the models. Third, comparing the included models was problematic and meta-analysis was not feasible due to the variety in the predictors and statistical measures used for model performances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review

Kunonga,

Kenny,

Astin

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo identify prognostic models for melanoma survival, recurrence and metastasis among American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I and II patients postsurgery; and evaluate model performance, including overall survival (OS) prediction.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesSearched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and grey literature sources including cancer and guideline websites from 2000 to September 2021.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies on risk prediction models for stage I and II melanoma in adults ≥18 years. Outcomes included OS, recurrence, metastases and model performance. No language or country of publication restrictions were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist and the Prediction study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Heterogeneous predictors prevented statistical synthesis.ResultsFrom 28 967 records, 15 studies reporting 20 models were included; 8 (stage I), 2 (stage II), 7 (stages I–II) and 7 (stages not reported), but were clearly applicable to early stages. Clinicopathological predictors per model ranged from 3–10. The most common were: ulceration, Breslow thickness/depth, sociodemographic status and site. Where reported, discriminatory values were ≥0.7. Calibration measures showed good matches between predicted and observed rates. None of the studies assessed clinical usefulness of the models. Risk of bias was high in eight models, unclear in nine and low in three. Seven models were internally and externally cross-validated, six models were externally validated and eight models were internally validated.ConclusionsAll models are effective in their predictive performance, however the low quality of the evidence raises concern as to whether current follow-up recommendations following surgical treatment is adequate. Future models should incorporate biomarkers for improved accuracy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086784.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review

Kunonga,

Kenny,

Astin

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important additional contribution to the positive development is made by the large number of checklists and accompanying guidance papers that have been published in recent years. These include reporting guidelines such as TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) [ 81 ], which provides a checklist of 22 items essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study [ 15 ]. It ensures that all relevant key details on the development process and model performance, which are needed to objectively appraise the validity and usefulness of the model, are reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Details on the study selection and eligibility criteria were published previously in a report describing the reporting quality of melanoma prediction studies [ 15 ]. In brief, we included studies reporting the development and validation of models for predicting the individual risk of occurrence of cutaneous melanoma.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to Evaluate Melanoma Prediction Studies

Kaiser

Mathes

Pfahlberg

et al. 2022

Cancers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rising incidences of cutaneous melanoma have fueled the development of statistical models that predict individual melanoma risk. Our aim was to assess the validity of published prediction models for incident cutaneous melanoma using a standardized procedure based on PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). We included studies that were identified by a recent systematic review and updated the literature search to ensure that our PROBAST rating included all relevant studies. Six reviewers assessed the risk of bias (ROB) for each study using the published “PROBAST Assessment Form” that consists of four domains and an overall ROB rating. We further examined a temporal effect regarding changes in overall and domain-specific ROB rating distributions. Altogether, 42 studies were assessed, of which the vast majority (n = 34; 81%) was rated as having high ROB. Only one study was judged as having low ROB. The main reasons for high ROB ratings were the use of hospital controls in case-control studies and the omission of any validation of prediction models. However, our temporal analysis results showed a significant reduction in the number of studies with high ROB for the domain “analysis”. Nevertheless, the evidence base of high-quality studies that can be used to draw conclusions on the prediction of incident cutaneous melanoma is currently much weaker than the high number of studies on this topic would suggest.

show abstract

“…GLs are a ubiquitous communication tool (Kaiser et al 2022 ; Valentine 2017 ), often constituted of expert consensus reports of best practise (Shaneyfelt and Centor 2009 ). They aim to provide standardised, evidence-based advice by which decision-makers can determine the course and nature of action (Shen et al 2021 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Useful? Fish-Friendly Irrigation Guidelines for the Lower Mekong Lack Definition in Five Key Areas

Duncan

Bond

Conallin

et al. 2023

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A proliferation of irrigation infrastructure throughout the Mekong River has impacted the ability of certain fish species to migrate to fulfil their lifecycle. In response, fishways, a type of fish-friendly irrigation structure, have been developed to provide passage for these fish. In recent years, several guidelines documents providing guidance on fish-friendly irrigation structures and their construction have been published. The development process from guideline inception to publication is unclear, while their purpose, audience, and contribution to fishway practice are vague. This study is the first to review the development of three fish-friendly guideline documents, using structural criteria analysis, combined with qualitative data from 27 key informant interviews. It aimed to understand document elements such as purpose, audience, scope, and framing. The results showed reviewed guideline utility and impact could be improved by attention to five key aspects, namely: definition of target audience; engagement of target audience in guideline design; definition of guideline scope; specificity of recommendations; and evaluation. Attention to these 5 aspects may result in guidelines that are perceived as more useful by their target audience and have greater impact on water management practice.

show abstract

Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement

Cited by 4 publications

References 68 publications

Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review

Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review

Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to Evaluate Melanoma Prediction Studies

How Useful? Fish-Friendly Irrigation Guidelines for the Lower Mekong Lack Definition in Five Key Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About