Objectives: To (1) explore trends of risk of bias (ROB) in prediction research over time following key methodological publications, using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST)... Show moreObjectives: To (1) explore trends of risk of bias (ROB) in prediction research over time following key methodological publications, using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and (2) assess the inter-rater agreement of the PROBAST.Study Design and Setting: PubMed and Web of Science were searched for reviews with extractable PROBAST scores on domain and signaling question (SQ) level. ROB trends were visually correlated with yearly citations of key publications. Inter-rater agreement was asResults: One hundred and thirty nine systematic reviews were included, of which 85 reviews (containing 2,477 single studies) on domain level and 54 reviews (containing 2,458 single studies) on SQ level. High ROB was prevalent, especially in the Analysis domain, and overall trends of ROB remained relatively stable over time. The inter-rater agreement was low, both on domain (Kappa 0.04-0.26) and SQ level (Kappa -0.14 to 0.49). Conclusion: Prediction model studies are at high ROB and time trends in ROB as assessed with the PROBAST remain relatively stable. These results might be explained by key publications having no influence on ROB or recency of key publications. Moreover, the trend may suffer from the low inter-rater agreement and ceiling effect of the PROBAST. The inter-rater agreement could potentially be improved by altering the PROBAST or providing training on how to apply the PROBAST.& COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Objectives: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine:... Show moreObjectives: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement. Methods: Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later. Results: In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were >.60 for most items. Conclusions: The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement. Practice implications: Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice. Show less
Stubenrouch, F.E.; Pieterse, A.H.; Falkenberg, R.; Santema, T.K.B.; Stiggelbout, A.M.; Weijden, T. van der; ... ; Ubbink, D.T. 2016
