G S Collins1, J B Reitsma, D G Altman, K G M Moons. 1. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare 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. 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. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. METHODS: 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, healthcare 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. RESULTS: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. CONCLUSION: 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. A complete checklist is available at http://www.tripod-statement.org.
BACKGROUND: Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare 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. 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. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. METHODS: 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, healthcare 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. RESULTS: The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. CONCLUSION: 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. A complete checklist is available at http://www.tripod-statement.org.
Authors: Jill Gwiasda; Alexander Kaltenborn; Jörg A Müller; Michaela Serttas; Georg W F Scheumann; Harald Schrem; Mark D Jäger Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Jaime Lynn Speiser; Kathryn E Callahan; Denise K Houston; Jason Fanning; Thomas M Gill; Jack M Guralnik; Anne B Newman; Marco Pahor; W Jack Rejeski; Michael E Miller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stylianos Serghiou; Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis; Kevin W Boyack; Nico Riedel; Joshua D Wallach; John P A Ioannidis Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: York Jiao; Anshuman Sharma; Arbi Ben Abdallah; Thomas M Maddox; Thomas Kannampallil Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Lori A Dolan; Stuart L Weinstein; Mark F Abel; Patrick P Bosch; Matthew B Dobbs; Tyler O Farber; Matthew F Halsey; M Timothy Hresko; Walter F Krengel; Charles T Mehlman; James O Sanders; Richard M Schwend; Suken A Shah; Kushagra Verma Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2019-11