Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators

Open access
Van Calster, Ben, Wynants, Laure, Verbeek, Jan F.M., Verbakel, Jan Y., Christodoulou, Evangelia, Vickers, Andrew J., Roobol, Monique J., Steyerberg, Ewout W.·2018·European Urology

Abstract

Context: Urologists regularly develop clinical risk prediction models to support clinical decisions. In contrast to traditional performance measures, decision curve analysis (DCA) can assess the utility of models for decision making. DCA plots net benefit (NB) at a range of clinically reasonable risk thresholds. Objective: To provide recommendations on interpreting and reporting DCA when evaluating prediction models. Evidence acquisition: We informally reviewed the urological literature to determine investigators’ understanding of DCA. To illustrate, we use data from 3616 patients to develop risk models for high-grade prostate cancer (n = 313, 9%) to decide who should undergo a biopsy. The baseline model includes prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination; the extended model adds two predictors based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Evidence synthesis: We explain risk thresholds, NB, default strategies (treat all, treat no one), and test tradeoff. To use DCA, first determine whether a model is superior to all other strategies across the range of reasonable risk thresholds. If so, that model appears to improve decisions irrespective of threshold. Second, consider if there are important extra costs to using the model. If so, obtain the test tradeoff to check whether the increase in NB versus the best other strategy is worth the additional cost. In our case study, addition of TRUS improved NB by 0.0114, equivalent to 1.1 more detected high-grade prostate cancers per 100 patients. Hence, adding TRUS would be worthwhile if we accept subjecting 88 patients to TRUS to find one additional high-grade prostate cancer or, alternatively, subjecting 10 patients to TRUS to avoid one unnecessary biopsy. Conclusions: The proposed guidelines can help researchers understand DCA and improve application and reporting. Patient summary: Decision curve analysis can identify risk models that can help us make better clinical decisions. We illustrate appropriate reporting and interpretation of decision curve analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,271

Metadata

Authors
Van Calster, B., Wynants, L., Verbeek, J. F. M., Verbakel, J. Y., Christodoulou, E., Vickers, A. J., Roobol, M. J., & Steyerberg, E. W.
Venue
European Urology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
74
Issue
6
Pages
796-804
ISSN
0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890840903
Cited by
1,271
References
5
FWCI
43.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038
The paper
Van Calster, B., Wynants, L., Verbeek, J. F. M., Verbakel, J. Y., Christodoulou, E., Vickers, A. J., Roobol, M. J., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2018). Reporting and Interpreting Decision Curve Analysis: A Guide for Investigators. European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.038

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.