Cited by 195Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis

Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review.

Open access
Mallett, Susan, Royston, Patrick, Waters, Rachel, Dutton, Susan, Altman, Douglas G·2010·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Appropriate choice and use of prognostic models in clinical practice require the use of good methods for both model development, and for developing prognostic indices and risk groups from the models. In order to assess reliability and generalizability for use, models need to have been validated and measures of model performance reported. We reviewed published articles to assess the methods and reporting used to develop and evaluate performance of prognostic indices and risk groups from prognostic models. METHODS: We developed a systematic search string and identified articles from PubMed. Forty-seven articles were included that satisfied the following inclusion criteria: published in 2005; aiming to predict patient outcome; presenting new prognostic models in cancer with outcome time to an event and including a combination of at least two separate variables; and analysing data using multivariable analysis suitable for time to event data. RESULTS: In 47 studies, Cox models were used in 94% (44), but the coefficients or hazard ratios for the variables in the final model were reported in only 72% (34). The reproducibility of the derived model was assessed in only 11% (5) of the articles. A prognostic index was developed from the model in 81% (38) of the articles, but researchers derived the prognostic index from the final prognostic model in only 34% (13) of the studies; different coefficients or variables from those in the final model were used in 50% (19) of models and the methods used were unclear in 16% (6) of the articles. Methods used to derive prognostic groups were also poor, with researchers not reporting the methods used in 39% (14 of 36) of the studies and data derived methods likely to bias estimates of differences between risk groups being used in 28% (10) of the studies. Validation of their models was reported in only 34% (16) of the studies. In 15 studies validation used data from the same population and in five studies from a different population. Including reports of validation with external data from publications up to four years following model development, external validation was attempted for only 21% (10) of models. Insufficient information was provided on the performance of models in terms of discrimination and calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Many published prognostic models have been developed using poor methods and many with poor reporting, both of which compromise the reliability and clinical relevance of models, prognostic indices and risk groups derived from them.

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 · 10.1186/1741-7015-8-21

Cites

113 of 113 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?

  • Good reporting of how candidate predictors were pre-selected in this review compares favourably with other reviews.

    “Good reporting of how candidate predictors were pre-selected in our review compares favourably with other reviews [15],[20],[21],[29],[33],[35],[36],[48].”

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
Mallett, S., Royston, P., Waters, R., Dutton, S., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
Corresponding author
Mallett, Susan
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2010-03-30
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
21-21
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1988375742
Cited by
195
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Medical Research Council (MC_EX_G0800814, U.1228.06.001.00002.01)
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 › Oncology › Inflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Keywords
prognostic model, cancer, reporting quality, prognostic score, risk groups, model validation, external validation, discrimination (statistics), calibration, Cox model, hazard ratio, reproducibility, time to event
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Statistics 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