BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are formal combinations of historical, physical examination and laboratory or radiographic test data elements designed to accurately estimate the probability that a specific illness is present (diagnostic model), will respond to a form of treatment (therapeutic model) or will have a well-defined outcome (prognostic model) in an individual patient. They are derived and validated using empirical data and used to assist physicians in their clinical decision-making that requires a quantitative assessment of diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic probabilities at the bedside. PURPOSE: To provide intensivists with a comprehensive overview of the empirical development and testing phases that a clinical prediction model must satisfy before its implementation into clinical practice. RESULTS: The development of a clinical prediction model encompasses three consecutive phases, namely derivation, (external) validation and impact analysis. The derivation phase consists of building a multivariable model, estimating its apparent predictive performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination, and assessing the potential for statistical over-fitting using internal validation techniques (i.e. split-sampling, cross-validation or bootstrapping). External validation consists of testing the predictive performance of a model by assessing its calibration and discrimination in different but plausibly related patients. Impact analysis involves comparative research [i.e. (cluster) randomized trials] to determine whether clinical use of a prediction model affects physician practices, patient outcomes or the cost of healthcare delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This narrative review introduces a checklist of 19 items designed to help intensivists develop and transparently report valid clinical prediction models.
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models are formal combinations of historical, physical examination and laboratory or radiographic test data elements designed to accurately estimate the probability that a specific illness is present (diagnostic model), will respond to a form of treatment (therapeutic model) or will have a well-defined outcome (prognostic model) in an individual patient. They are derived and validated using empirical data and used to assist physicians in their clinical decision-making that requires a quantitative assessment of diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic probabilities at the bedside. PURPOSE: To provide intensivists with a comprehensive overview of the empirical development and testing phases that a clinical prediction model must satisfy before its implementation into clinical practice. RESULTS: The development of a clinical prediction model encompasses three consecutive phases, namely derivation, (external) validation and impact analysis. The derivation phase consists of building a multivariable model, estimating its apparent predictive performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination, and assessing the potential for statistical over-fitting using internal validation techniques (i.e. split-sampling, cross-validation or bootstrapping). External validation consists of testing the predictive performance of a model by assessing its calibration and discrimination in different but plausibly related patients. Impact analysis involves comparative research [i.e. (cluster) randomized trials] to determine whether clinical use of a prediction model affects physician practices, patient outcomes or the cost of healthcare delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This narrative review introduces a checklist of 19 items designed to help intensivists develop and transparently report valid clinical prediction models.
Authors: Rolf H H Groenwold; Ian R White; A Rogier T Donders; James R Carpenter; Douglas G Altman; Karel G M Moons Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Drahomir Aujesky; D Scott Obrosky; Roslyn A Stone; Thomas E Auble; Arnaud Perrier; Jacques Cornuz; Pierre-Marie Roy; Michael J Fine Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Mary K Porteous; James C Lee; David J Lederer; Scott M Palmer; Edward Cantu; Rupal J Shah; Scarlett L Bellamy; Vibha N Lama; Sangeeta M Bhorade; Maria M Crespo; John F McDyer; Keith M Wille; A Russell Localio; Jonathan B Orens; Pali D Shah; Ann B Weinacker; Selim Arcasoy; David S Wilkes; Lorraine B Ware; Jason D Christie; Steven M Kawut; Joshua M Diamond Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-10
Authors: Po-Yen Wu; Chih-Wen Cheng; Chanchala D Kaddi; Janani Venugopalan; Ryan Hoffman; May D Wang Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Ryan P Barbaro; Philip S Boonstra; Matthew L Paden; Lloyd A Roberts; Gail M Annich; Robert H Bartlett; Frank W Moler; Matthew M Davis Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Philippe R Bauer; Rahul Kashyap; Stacy C League; John G Park; Darci R Block; Nikola A Baumann; Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich; Sarah M Jenkins; Carin Y Smith; Ognjen Gajic; Roshini S Abraham Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Vibe S Mikkelsen; Marie Helleberg; Nicolai Haase; Morten H Møller; Anders Granholm; Merete Storgaard; Andreas B Jonsson; Kristian Schønning; Nanna Reiter; Sigurður Þór Sigurðsson; Marianne Voldstedlund; Steffen Christensen; Anders Perner Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 2.274