Gary S Collins1, Johannes B Reitsma2, Douglas G Altman3, Karel G M Moons2. 1. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: gary.collins@csm.ox.ac.uk. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. OBJECTIVE: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. CONCLUSIONS: To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org). PATIENT SUMMARY: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes.
CONTEXT: Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. OBJECTIVE: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. CONCLUSIONS: To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org). PATIENT SUMMARY: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes.
Authors: Yi Luo; Daniel L McShan; Martha M Matuszak; Dipankar Ray; Theodore S Lawrence; Shruti Jolly; Feng-Ming Kong; Randall K Ten Haken; Issam El Naqa Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Avi Rosenfeld; David G Graham; Sarah Jevons; Jose Ariza; Daryl Hagan; Ash Wilson; Samuel J Lovat; Sarmed S Sami; Omer F Ahmad; Marco Novelli; Manuel Rodriguez Justo; Alison Winstanley; Eliyahu M Heifetz; Mordehy Ben-Zecharia; Uria Noiman; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Peter Sasieni; Laurence B Lovat Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2019-12-05
Authors: Daniel M Goldenholz; Shira R Goldenholz; Juan Romero; Rob Moss; Haoqi Sun; Brandon Westover Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Shveta S Motwani; Gearoid M McMahon; Benjamin D Humphreys; Ann H Partridge; Sushrut S Waikar; Gary C Curhan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M E O'Callaghan; E Raymond; J Campbell; A D Vincent; K Beckmann; D Roder; S Evans; J McNeil; J Millar; J Zalcberg; M Borg; K Moretti Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Hyla-Louise Kluyts; Wilhelmina Conradie; Estie Cloete; Sandra Spijkerman; Oliver Smith; Ahmed Alli; Modise Z Koto; Odisang D Montwedi; Komalan Govender; Larissa Cronjé; Mariette Grobbelaar; Jones A Omoshoro-Jones; Nicolette F Rorke; Philip Anderson; Alexandra Torborg; Christella Alphonsus; Panagiotis Alexandris; Aunel Mallier Peter; Usha Singh; Johan Diedericks; Busisiwe Mrara; Anthony Reed; Gareth L Davies; Jody G Davids; Hendrik A Van Zyl; Vishendran Govindasamy; Reitze Rodseth; Roel Matos-Puig; Kajake A P Bhat; Noel Naidoo; John Roos; Magdalena Jaworska; Annemarie Steyn; Johannes M Dippenaar; R M Pearse; Thandinkosi Madiba; Bruce M Biccard Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Julie A Womack; Terrence E Murphy; Harini Bathulapalli; Alexandria Smith; Jonathan Bates; Samah Jarad; Nancy S Redeker; Stephen L Luther; Thomas M Gill; Cynthia A Brandt; Amy C Justice Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ben Van Calster; Laure Wynants; Jan F M Verbeek; Jan Y Verbakel; Evangelia Christodoulou; Andrew J Vickers; Monique J Roobol; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 20.096