School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
J Dent Res. 2020 Apr;99(4):374-387. doi: 10.1177/0022034520903725. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
Recent efforts to improve the reliability and efficiency of scientific research have caught the attention of researchers conducting prediction modeling studies (PMSs). Use of prediction models in oral health has become more common over the past decades for predicting the risk of diseases and treatment outcomes. Risk of bias and insufficient reporting present challenges to the reproducibility and implementation of these models. A recent tool for bias assessment and a reporting guideline-PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis)-have been proposed to guide researchers in the development and reporting of PMSs, but their application has been limited. Following the standards proposed in these tools and a systematic review approach, a literature search was carried out in PubMed to identify oral health PMSs published in dental, epidemiologic, and biostatistical journals. Risk of bias and transparency of reporting were assessed with PROBAST and TRIPOD. Among 2,881 papers identified, 34 studies containing 58 models were included. The most investigated outcomes were periodontal diseases (42%) and oral cancers (30%). Seventy-five percent of the studies were susceptible to at least 4 of 20 sources of bias, including measurement error in predictors ( = 12) and/or outcome ( = 7), omitting samples with missing data ( = 10), selecting variables based on univariate analyses ( = 9), overfitting ( = 13), and lack of model performance assessment ( = 24). Based on TRIPOD, at least 5 of 31 items were inadequately reported in 95% of the studies. These items included sampling approaches ( = 15), participant eligibility criteria ( = 6), and model-building procedures ( = 16). There was a general lack of transparent reporting and identification of bias across the studies. Application of the recommendations proposed in PROBAST and TRIPOD can benefit future research and improve the reproducibility and applicability of prediction models in oral health.
最近,提高科学研究可靠性和效率的努力引起了进行预测建模研究(PMS)的研究人员的关注。在过去几十年中,预测模型在口腔健康中的应用越来越普遍,用于预测疾病风险和治疗结果。偏倚风险和报告不足对这些模型的可重复性和实施提出了挑战。最近提出了一种用于评估偏倚和报告指南的工具-PROBAST(预测模型偏倚风险评估工具)和 TRIPOD(用于个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型的透明报告),以指导研究人员开发和报告 PMS,但它们的应用受到限制。遵循这些工具提出的标准和系统评价方法,在 PubMed 中进行了文献检索,以确定发表在牙科、流行病学和生物统计学期刊上的口腔健康 PMS。使用 PROBAST 和 TRIPOD 评估了偏倚风险和报告的透明度。在确定的 2881 篇论文中,有 34 项研究包含 58 个模型。研究最多的结果是牙周病(42%)和口腔癌(30%)。75%的研究至少有 4 个来源的偏倚,包括预测因子( = 12)和/或结果( = 7)的测量误差、忽略缺失数据的样本( = 10)、根据单变量分析选择变量( = 9)、过度拟合( = 13)和缺乏模型性能评估( = 24)。根据 TRIPOD,95%的研究至少有 5 个项目未充分报告,其中包括抽样方法( = 15)、参与者资格标准( = 6)和模型构建程序( = 16)。这些研究普遍缺乏透明报告和偏倚识别。在未来的研究中应用 PROBAST 和 TRIPOD 提出的建议,可以使预测模型在口腔健康中的可重复性和适用性受益。