Cited by 657Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance

Open access
Debray, Thomas P A, Damen, Johanna A A G, Snell, Kym I E, Ensor, Joie, Hooft, Lotty, Reitsma, Johannes B, Riley, Richard D, Moons, Karel G M·2017·BMJ

Abstract

Validation of prediction models is highly recommended and increasingly common in the literature. A systematic review of validation studies is therefore helpful, with meta-analysis needed to summarise the predictive performance of the model being validated across different settings and populations. This article provides guidance for researchers systematically reviewing and meta-analysing the existing evidence on a specific prediction model, discusses good practice when quantitatively summarising the predictive performance of the model across studies, and provides recommendations for interpreting meta-analysis estimates of model performance. We present key steps of the meta-analysis and illustrate each step in an example review, by summarising the discrimination and calibration performance of the EuroSCORE for predicting operative mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.i6460

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Previously discussed meta-analysis methods mainly focused on diagnostic prediction models with a binary outcome and may have limited value for prognostic models with a time-to-event outcome.

    “These methods mainly focused on (diagnostic) prediction models with a binary outcome, and may therefore have limited value when reviewing (prognostic) models with a time-to-event outcome.”
  • The total O:E ratio quantifies the averaged observed:expected ratio across the entire range of predicted risks and is strongly related to calibration-in-the-large.

    “In particular, the total O:E ratio quantifies the averaged observed:expected ratio across the entire range of predicted risks, and is strongly related to calibration-in-the-large.14”
  • Discrimination and calibration performance are highly dependent on patient spectrum (case-mix variation) and therefore most likely to vary across validation studies.

    “In particular, discrimination and calibration performance are highly dependent on patient spectrum (case-mix variation) and therefore most likely to vary across validation studies.14”
  • It is common for validation studies to present information on the total number of observed and expected events, or the corresponding observed frequencies, which can be used to calculate the total O:E ratio.

    “However, it is common for validation studies to present information on the total number of observed (O) and expected (E) events, or the corresponding observed frequencies PO and PE. These quantities can then be used to calculate the total O:E ratio”
  • Quantitative synthesis of prediction model studies may help to better understand their potential generalizability and can be achieved by applying meta-analysis methods.

    “Quantitative synthesis of prediction model studies may help to better understand their potential generalizability and can be achieved by applying meta-analysis methods.14”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Debray, T. P. A., Damen, J. A. A. G., Snell, K. I. E., Ensor, J., Hooft, L., Reitsma, J. B., Riley, R. D., & Moons, K. G. M.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Keele University (GB)
Corresponding author
Debray, Thomas P A
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-01-05
Volume
356
Pages
i6460
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2570878489
Cited by
657
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 109 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 11 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/L004933/1, G0902393)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
prediction model validation, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, predictive performance, discrimination (statistics), calibration, EuroSCORE, postoperative mortality, coronary artery bypass grafting, risk prediction model
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Coronary Artery Bypass, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Risk Assessment, Validation Studies as Topic

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