Prediction models in gynaecology: Transparent reporting needed for clinical application
Abstract
The clinical application of prediction models is increasing within the field of gynaecology and obstetrics. This is mostly due to the fact that clinicians and patients prefer individualized counselling and person specific, more objective outcome assessment. To prevent using inadequate models, it is important to construct and perform prediction model studies correctly. Therefore, the TRIPOD statement (the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) was developed. The aim of this review is to obtain an overview of the existing published prediction models for benign gynaecology and to investigate to what extent these studies meet the TRIPOD criteria. We performed a literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to August 2020. Searching the cross-references of the relevant studies within our search identified additional articles. Publications were included if the aim of the study was to develop a multivariable prediction model within the field of benign gynaecology. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Analysis of the studies was performed by using a checklist derived from the TRIPOD criteria. Based on our search, 2487 studies were selected, including potential duplications. Eventually, a total of twenty-two studies were selected. 91% of these studies handled their predictors by univariable analysis before developing a multivariable prediction model. Fifteen studies described having missing data, but not all of them (9%) handled these missing data. Four different internal validation methods were used in twenty studies. Fifteen studies (68%) had prediction models with a C-index ≥ 0.7, which indicates a good model. Half of the studies (50%) did not measure the calibration, overall performance was described in two studies (9%). External validation was performed in 9% of the studies. The correct development of a prediction model within benign gynaecology and subsequent transparent reporting of the model development is important to facilitate clinical use. Without transparent reporting, wrong assumptions can be made leading to incorrect application of a specific prediction model. This overview shows that excepting carrying out an external validation, only one article met all the criteria. Therefore, we strongly recommend use of the TRIPOD criteria for developing and validating a prediction model (study). In addition, prior to publication, content experts should critically and statistically review the prediction model. If too many criteria are not met, refusing publication should be considered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Only 9% of all prediction models in the field of benign gynecology are externally validated.
“This is a common problem in prediction models: only 9% of all prediction models in the field of benign gynecology are externally validated [19].”
From The External Validation of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse After Native Tissue Repair: A Prospective Cohort Study (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 11
- Authors
- Gelderblom, M. E., Stevens, K. Y. R., Houterman, S., Weyers, S., & Schoot, B. C.
- Affiliations
- Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Ghent University Hospital (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gelderblom, Malou E.
- Stevens, Kelly Y.R.
- Houterman, Saskia
- Weyers, Steven
- Venue
- European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-10
- Volume
- 265
- Pages
- 190-202
- ISSN
- 0028-2243 (ISSN-L)
- 0301-2115
- OpenAlex
- W3200437654
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- prediction model, TRIPOD statement, reporting transparency, multivariable prediction models, internal validation, external validation, calibration, concordance index, missing data
- MeSH terms
- Female, Gynecology, Humans, Pregnancy, Prognosis, Research Design, Checklist
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review