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. 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. 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. 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. 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).
Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.
To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment ...or screening decisions.
For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.
We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.
Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed potential risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, were:A) decision attributes;B) decision making process attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health system effects. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random effects model.
Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.
New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.
Purpose This focused update addresses the use of MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA) to guide decisions on the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. Methods ASCO uses a signals approach to facilitate ...guideline updates. For this focused update, the publication of the phase III randomized MINDACT (Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy) study to evaluate the MammaPrint assay in 6,693 women with early-stage breast cancer provided a signal. An expert panel reviewed the results of the MINDACT study along with other published literature on the MammaPrint assay to assess for evidence of clinical utility. Recommendations If a patient has hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-negative breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in those with high clinical risk to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy due to its ability to identify a good-prognosis population with potentially limited chemotherapy benefit. Women in the low clinical risk category did not benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic MammaPrint risk group. Therefore, the MammaPrint assay does not have clinical utility in such patients. If a patient has hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in patients with one to three positive nodes and a high clinical risk to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. However, such patients should be informed that a benefit from chemotherapy cannot be excluded, particularly in patients with greater than one involved lymph node. The clinician should not use the MammaPrint assay to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive breast cancer at low clinical risk, nor any patient with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer, because of the lack of definitive data in these populations. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
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. 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. 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 three 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. 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. 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).To encourage dissemination of the TRIPOD Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site (www.annals.org) and will be also published in BJOG, British Journal of Cancer, British Journal of Surgery, BMC Medicine, The BMJ, Circulation, Diabetic Medicine, European Journal of Clinical Investigation, European Urology, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. An accompanying explanation and elaboration article is freely available only on www.annals.org; Annals of Internal Medicine holds copyright for that article.
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.
Objective
To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods
We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) ...questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
Results
The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).
Conclusion
This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
Existing criteria for the classification of gout have suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity, and were developed at a time when advanced imaging was not available. The current effort was ...undertaken to develop new classification criteria for gout.
An international group of investigators, supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, conducted a systematic review of the literature on advanced imaging of gout, a diagnostic study in which the presence of monosodium urate monohydrate (MSU) crystals in synovial fluid or tophus was the gold standard, a ranking exercise of paper patient cases, and a multi-criterion decision analysis exercise. These data formed the basis for developing the classification criteria, which were tested in an independent data set.
The entry criterion for the new classification criteria requires the occurrence of at least one episode of peripheral joint or bursal swelling, pain, or tenderness. The presence of MSU crystals in a symptomatic joint/bursa (ie, synovial fluid) or in a tophus is a sufficient criterion for classification of the subject as having gout, and does not require further scoring. The domains of the new classification criteria include clinical (pattern of joint/bursa involvement, characteristics and time course of symptomatic episodes), laboratory (serum urate, MSU-negative synovial fluid aspirate), and imaging (double-contour sign on ultrasound or urate on dual-energy CT, radiographic gout-related erosion). The sensitivity and specificity of the criteria are high (92% and 89%, respectively).
The new classification criteria, developed using a data-driven and decision-analytic approach, have excellent performance characteristics and incorporate current state-of-the-art evidence regarding gout.
Objective
To develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology ...(ACR).
Methods
This international initiative had four phases. 1) Evaluation of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion through systematic review and meta‐regression of the literature and criteria generation through an international Delphi exercise, an early patient cohort, and a patient survey. 2) Criteria reduction by Delphi and nominal group technique exercises. 3) Criteria definition and weighting based on criterion performance and on results of a multi‐criteria decision analysis. 4) Refinement of weights and threshold scores in a new derivation cohort of 1,001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1,270 subjects.
Results
The 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive weighted criteria grouped in 7 clinical (constitutional, hematologic, neuropsychiatric, mucocutaneous, serosal, musculoskeletal, renal) and 3 immunologic (antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, SLE‐specific antibodies) domains, and weighted from 2 to 10. Patients accumulating ≥10 points are classified. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%, compared with 82.8% sensitivity and 93.4% specificity of the ACR 1997 and 96.7% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria.
Conclusion
These new classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary and international input, and have excellent sensitivity and specificity. Use of ANA entry criterion, hierarchically clustered, and weighted criteria reflects current thinking about SLE and provides an improved foundation for SLE research.
Video
PDF
