Feller Daniel, Wingbermuhle Roel, Berg Bjørnar, Vigdal Ørjan Nesse, Innocenti Tiziano, Grotle Margreth, Ostelo Raymond, Chiarotto Alessandro
Department of Rehabilitation, Provincial Agency for Health of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Trento, Italy; Department of Human Resources, Provincial Agency for Health of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Trento, Italy; Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation sciences, SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
J Pain. 2024 Nov;25(11):104624. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104624. Epub 2024 Aug 10.
This metaresearch study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies in patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of adherence to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. We searched for prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in patients with spinal pain or OA in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Using a standardized assessment form, we assessed the adherence to the TRIPOD of the included studies. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction phases. We included 66 studies. Approximately 35% of the studies declared to have used the TRIPOD. The median adherence to the TRIPOD was 59% overall (interquartile range (IQR): 21.8), with the items of the methods and results sections having the worst reporting. Studies on neck pain had better adherence to the TRIPOD than studies on back pain and OA (medians of 76.5%, 59%, and 53%, respectively). External validation studies had the highest total adherence (median: 79.5%, IQR: 12.8) of all the study types. The median overall adherence was 4 points higher in studies that declared TRIPOD use than those that did not. Finally, we did not observe any improvement in adherence over the years. The adherence to the TRIPOD of prediction models in the spinal and OA fields is low, with the methods and results sections being the most poorly reported. Future studies on prediction models in spinal pain and OA should follow the TRIPOD to improve their reporting completeness. PERSPECTIVE: This article provides data about adherence to the TRIPOD statement in 66 prediction model studies for spinal pain or OA. The adherence to the TRIPOD statement was found to be low (median adherence of 59%). This inadequate reporting may negatively impact the effective use of the models in clinical practice.
这项元研究旨在根据对个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型透明报告（TRIPOD）声明的遵循情况，评估脊柱疼痛或骨关节炎（OA）患者预测模型研究报告的完整性。我们在MEDLINE、Embase、科学网和CINAHL中搜索了脊柱疼痛或OA患者的预后和诊断预测模型。使用标准化评估表，我们评估了纳入研究对TRIPOD的遵循情况。两名独立的评审员进行了研究筛选和数据提取阶段。我们纳入了66项研究。约35%的研究宣称使用了TRIPOD。总体上对TRIPOD的中位遵循率为59%（四分位间距（IQR）：21.8），方法和结果部分的项目报告最差。关于颈部疼痛的研究比关于背部疼痛和OA的研究对TRIPOD的遵循情况更好（中位数分别为76.5%、59%和53%）。外部验证研究在所有研究类型中总体遵循率最高（中位数：79.5%，IQR：12.8）。宣称使用TRIPOD的研究的中位总体遵循率比未宣称使用的研究高4分。最后，我们未观察到多年来遵循情况有任何改善。脊柱和OA领域预测模型对TRIPOD的遵循率较低，方法和结果部分报告最差。未来关于脊柱疼痛和OA预测模型的研究应遵循TRIPOD以提高报告完整性。观点：本文提供了66项脊柱疼痛或OA预测模型研究对TRIPOD声明遵循情况的数据。发现对TRIPOD声明的遵循率较低（中位遵循率为59%）。这种报告不足可能会对模型在临床实践中的有效应用产生负面影响。
