Objective: To assess whether the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and a shorter version of this tool can identify clinical prediction models (CPMs) that perform poorly at... Show moreObjective: To assess whether the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and a shorter version of this tool can identify clinical prediction models (CPMs) that perform poorly at external validation. Study Design and Setting: We evaluated risk of bias (ROB) on 102 CPMs from the Tufts CPM Registry, comparing PROBAST to a short form consisting of six PROBAST items anticipated to best identify high ROB. We then applied the short form to all CPMs in the Registry with at least 1 validation (n = 556) and assessed the change in discrimination (dAUC) in external validation cohorts (n = 1,147). Results: PROBAST classified 98/102 CPMS as high ROB. The short form identified 96 of these 98 as high ROB (98% sensitivity), with perfect specificity. In the full CPM registry, 527 of 556 CPMs (95%) were classified as high ROB, 20 (3.6%) low ROB, and 9 (1.6%) unclear ROB. Only one model with unclear ROB was reclassified to high ROB after full PROBAST assessment of all low and unclear ROB models. Median change in discrimination was significantly smaller in low ROB models (dAUC -0.9%, IQR -6.2-4.2%) compared to high ROB models (dAUC -11.7%, IQR -33.3-2.6%; P < 0.001). Conclusion: High ROB is pervasive among published CPMs. It is associated with poor discriminative performance at validation, supporting the application of PROBAST or a shorter version in CPM reviews. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http:// creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by- nc- nd/ 4.0/ ) Show less
Background: There are many clinical prediction models (CPMs) available to inform treatment decisions for patients with cardiovascular disease. However, the extent to which they have been externally... Show moreBackground: There are many clinical prediction models (CPMs) available to inform treatment decisions for patients with cardiovascular disease. However, the extent to which they have been externally tested, and how well they generally perform has not been broadly evaluated. Methods: A SCOPUS citation search was run on March 22, 2017 to identify external validations of cardiovascular CPMs in the Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness CPM Registry. We assessed the extent of external validation, performance heterogeneity across databases, and explored factors associated with model performance, including a global assessment of the clinical relatedness between the derivation and validation data. Results: We identified 2030 external validations of 1382 CPMs. Eight hundred seven (58%) of the CPMs in the Registry have never been externally validated. On average, there were 1.5 validations per CPM (range, 0-94). The median external validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73 (25th-75th percentile [interquartile range (IQR)], 0.66-0.79), representing a median percent decrease in discrimination of -11.1% (IQR, -32.4% to +2.7%) compared with performance on derivation data. 81% (n=1333) of validations reporting area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed discrimination below that reported in the derivation dataset. 53% (n=983) of the validations report some measure of CPM calibration. For CPMs evaluated more than once, there was typically a large range of performance. Of 1702 validations classified by relatedness, the percent change in discrimination was -3.7% (IQR, -13.2 to 3.1) for closely related validations (n=123), -9.0 (IQR, -27.6 to 3.9) for related validations (n=862), and -17.2% (IQR, -42.3 to 0) for distantly related validations (n=717; P<0.001). Conclusions: Many published cardiovascular CPMs have never been externally validated, and for those that have, apparent performance during development is often overly optimistic. A single external validation appears insufficient to broadly understand the performance heterogeneity across different settings. Show less
Woude, L. van der; Piotrowski, M.; Klaasse, G.; Paulus, J.K.; Krahn, D.; Ninck, S.; ... ; Zanten, M. van 2021
Background: Recent evidence suggests that there is often substantial variation in the benefits and harms across a trial population. We aimed to identify regression modeling approaches that assess... Show moreBackground: Recent evidence suggests that there is often substantial variation in the benefits and harms across a trial population. We aimed to identify regression modeling approaches that assess heterogeneity of treatment effect within a randomized clinical trial.Methods: We performed a literature review using a broad search strategy, complemented by suggestions of a technical expert panel.Results: The approaches are classified into 3 categories: 1) Risk-based methods (11 papers) use only prognostic factors to define patient subgroups, relying on the mathematical dependency of the absolute risk difference on baseline risk; 2) Treatment effect modeling methods (9 papers) use both prognostic factors and treatment effect modifiers to explore characteristics that interact with the effects of therapy on a relative scale. These methods couple data-driven subgroup identification with approaches to prevent overfitting, such as penalization or use of separate data sets for subgroup identification and effect estimation. 3) Optimal treatment regime methods (12 papers) focus primarily on treatment effect modifiers to classify the trial population into those who benefit from treatment and those who do not. Finally, we also identified papers which describe model evaluation methods (4 papers).Conclusions: Three classes of approaches were identified to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect. Methodological research, including both simulations and empirical evaluations, is required to compare the available methods in different settings and to derive well-informed guidance for their application in RCT analysis. Show less
The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed to promote the conduct of, and provide guidance for, predictive analyses of heterogeneity of treatment... Show moreThe PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed to promote the conduct of, and provide guidance for, predictive analyses of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in clinical trials. The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risk with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously, to support more personalized clinical decision making than can be made on the basis of only an overall average treatment effect. The authors distinguished 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches (a "risk-modeling" and an "effect-modeling" approach) and developed 4 sets of guidance statements: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically meaningful HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. They discuss limitations of these methods and enumerate research priorities for advancing methods designed to generate more personalized evidence. This explanation and elaboration document describes the intent and rationale of each recommendation and discusses related analytic considerations, caveats, and reservations. Show less
Heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) refers to the nonrandom variation in the magnitude or direction of a treatment effect across levels of a covariate, as measured on a selected scale, against... Show moreHeterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) refers to the nonrandom variation in the magnitude or direction of a treatment effect across levels of a covariate, as measured on a selected scale, against a clinical outcome. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HTE is typically examined through a subgroup analysis that contrasts effects in groups of patients defined "1 variable at a time" (for example, male vs. female or old vs. young). The authors of this statement present guidance on an alternative approach to HTE analysis, "predictive HTE analysis." The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously. The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed using a multidisciplinary technical expert panel, targeted literature reviews, simulations to characterize potential problems with predictive approaches, and a deliberative process engaging the expert panel. The authors distinguish 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches: a "risk-modeling" approach, wherein a multivariable model predicts the risk for an outcome and is applied to disaggregate patients within RCTs to define risk-based variation in benefit, and an "effect-modeling" approach, wherein a model is developed on RCT data by incorporating a term for treatment assignment and interactions between treatment and baseline covariates. Both approaches can be used to predict differential absolute treatment effects, the most relevant scale for clinical decision making. The authors developed 4 sets of guidance: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically important HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. The PATH Statement, together with its explanation and elaboration document, may guide future analyses and reporting of RCTs. Show less
