Skip to main content
  • Development and validation of clinical prediction models of survival and clinical outcomes for patients with metastatic epidural spinal disease: A systematic review

    Final Number:
    295

    Authors:
    Anick Nater MD; Jetan H. Badhiwala MD; James Hong; So Kato; Melanie Anderson; David Choi FRCS, ChB, PhD; Michael G. Fehlings MD PhD FRCS(C) FACS

    Study Design:
    Other

    Subject Category:
    Spine

    Meeting: Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves Spine Summit 2018

    Introduction: In multivariable prognostic research, the development and external validation are the first phases typically involved towards the establishment of clinical prediction models (CPMs) in practice. This systematic review aims to identify and assess CPMs created to predict clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic epidural spinal disease (MESD) and subsequent validation studies.

    Methods: Three electronic databases were searched (January 1, 1990 to June 20, 2017), without language restriction, to identify studies that developed or evaluated CPMs predicting any clinical outcomes in adult patients with MESD (PROSPERO: CRD42017072908). Selected studies were then assessed based on their accordance with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.

    Results: Among 7,275 unique full-text articles, 106 were included. Among the 42 articles describing the development of a CPM, 25 did not include any assessment related to internal validity/model performance while 13 reported the number of outcome events and 5 how missing data were handled and only one allowed to obtain outcome predicted probabilities. We identified 79 studies evaluating CPMs. Among the 25 articles with the term “validation”, “validated” or “validity” in the title or abstract, missing data for predictors and outcome, number of outcome events, and both calibration and discrimination were specifically mentioned in 8, 15 and 3 studies, respectively.

    Conclusions: Since 1990, over 40 CPMs predicting clinical outcomes in patients with MESD were developed and 76 studies performing some sort of evaluation of these CPM were published. Based on the items included in the TRIPOD statement, the majority of these studies did not report on key methodological and data analysis elements. The lack of rigor in the development and validation of CPMs may explain why most CPMs are not generally used in clinical practice.

    Patient Care: This systematic review aims to identify and assess CPMs created to predict clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic epidural spinal disease (MESD) and subsequent validation studies.

    Learning Objectives: This systematic review aims to identify and assess CPMs created to predict clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic epidural spinal disease (MESD) and subsequent validation studies.

    References:

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy