Background. Diagnostic and prognostic models are typically evaluated with measures of accuracy that do not address clinical consequences. Decision-analytic techniques allow assessment of clinical ...outcomes but often require collection of additional information and may be cumbersome to apply to models that yield a continuous result. The authors sought a method for evaluating and comparing prediction models that incorporates clinical consequences, requires only the data set on which the models are tested, and can be applied to models that have either continuous or dichotomous results. Method. The authors describe decision curve analysis, a simple, novel method of evaluating predictive models. They start by assuming that the threshold probability of a disease or event at which a patient would opt for treatment is informative of how the patient weighs the relative harms of a false-positive and a false-negative prediction. This theoretical relationship is then used to derive the net benefit of the model across different threshold probabilities. Plotting net benefit against threshold probability yields the “decision curve.” The authors apply the method to models for the prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer patients. Decision curve analysis identified the range of threshold probabilities in which a model was of value, the magnitude of benefit, and which of several models was optimal. Conclusion. Decision curve analysis is a suitable method for evaluating alternative diagnostic and prognostic strategies that has advantages over other commonly used measures and techniques.
Full text
Available for:
NUK, OILJ, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies ...developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.
Inaccurate description of staged consent Vickers, Andrew J.
European journal of internal medicine,
February 2023, 2023-Feb, 2023-02-00, 20230201, Volume:
108
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Abstract Background Despite revisions in 2005 and 2014, the Gleason prostate cancer (PCa) grading system still has major deficiencies. Combining of Gleason scores into a three-tiered grouping (6, 7, ...8–10) is used most frequently for prognostic and therapeutic purposes. The lowest score, assigned 6, may be misunderstood as a cancer in the middle of the grading scale, and 3 + 4 = 7 and 4 + 3 = 7 are often considered the same prognostic group. Objective To verify that a new grading system accurately produces a smaller number of grades with the most significant prognostic differences, using multi-institutional and multimodal therapy data. Design, setting, and participants Between 2005 and 2014, 20 845 consecutive men were treated by radical prostatectomy at five academic institutions; 5501 men were treated with radiotherapy at two academic institutions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcome was based on biochemical recurrence (BCR). The log-rank test assessed univariable differences in BCR by Gleason score. Separate univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards used four possible categorizations of Gleason scores. Results and limitations In the surgery cohort, we found large differences in recurrence rates between both Gleason 3 + 4 versus 4 + 3 and Gleason 8 versus 9. The hazard ratios relative to Gleason score 6 were 1.9, 5.1, 8.0, and 11.7 for Gleason scores 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 8, and 9–10, respectively. These differences were attenuated in the radiotherapy cohort as a whole due to increased adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormones for patients with high-grade disease but were clearly seen in patients undergoing radiotherapy only. A five–grade group system had the highest prognostic discrimination for all cohorts on both univariable and multivariable analysis. The major limitation was the unavoidable use of prostate-specific antigen BCR as an end point as opposed to cancer-related death. Conclusions The new PCa grading system has these benefits: more accurate grade stratification than current systems, simplified grading system of five grades, and lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa. Patient summary We looked at outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy and validated a new grading system with more accurate grade stratification than current systems, including a simplified grading system of five grades and a lowest grade is 1, as opposed to 6, with the potential to reduce overtreatment of PCa.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
It has generally been argued that parametric statistics should not be applied to data with non-normal distributions. Empirical research has demonstrated that Mann-Whitney generally has greater power ...than the t-test unless data are sampled from the normal. In the case of randomized trials, we are typically interested in how an endpoint, such as blood pressure or pain, changes following treatment. Such trials should be analyzed using ANCOVA, rather than t-test. The objectives of this study were: a) to compare the relative power of Mann-Whitney and ANCOVA; b) to determine whether ANCOVA provides an unbiased estimate for the difference between groups; c) to investigate the distribution of change scores between repeat assessments of a non-normally distributed variable.
Polynomials were developed to simulate five archetypal non-normal distributions for baseline and post-treatment scores in a randomized trial. Simulation studies compared the power of Mann-Whitney and ANCOVA for analyzing each distribution, varying sample size, correlation and type of treatment effect (ratio or shift).
Change between skewed baseline and post-treatment data tended towards a normal distribution. ANCOVA was generally superior to Mann-Whitney in most situations, especially where log-transformed data were entered into the model. The estimate of the treatment effect from ANCOVA was not importantly biased.
ANCOVA is the preferred method of analyzing randomized trials with baseline and post-treatment measures. In certain extreme cases, ANCOVA is less powerful than Mann-Whitney. Notably, in these cases, the estimate of treatment effect provided by ANCOVA is of questionable interpretability.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, ...full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
PDF
