The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 40 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement
Open accessAbstract
Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org ). Editors’ note: In order to encourage dissemination of the TRIPOD Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site ( www.annals.org ) and will be also published in BJOG, British Journal of Cancer, British Journal of Surgery, BMC Medicine, British Medical Journal, Circulation, Diabetic Medicine, European Journal of Clinical Investigation, European Urology, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. An accompanying Explanation and Elaboration article is freely available only on www.annals.org ; Annals of Internal Medicine holds copyright for that article.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The TRIPOD Statement is a reporting guideline consisting of a 22-item checklist for studies developing, validating, or updating multivariable prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis. It was developed through literature review, a Web-based survey, and a consensus meeting to address the generally poor reporting quality of prediction model studies.
Key findings
- The TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items deemed essential for transparent reporting of prediction model studies, covering title and abstract, background and objectives, methods, results, discussion, and other information.
- Items are marked as relevant to development (D), validation (V), or both (D;V); development-only items include 10a, 10b, 14, and 15, while validation-only items include 10c, 10e, 12, 13c, 17, and 19a.
- Cited reviews found poor reporting: Mallett and colleagues examined 47 reports of new cancer prediction models; Collins and colleagues evaluated 39 reports of type 2 diabetes prediction models; Bouwmeester and colleagues evaluated 71 reports published in 2008 in 6 high-impact general medical journals.
- TRIPOD is not intended for multivariable modeling in etiologic studies, studies investigating single prognostic factors, or impact studies quantifying the impact of using a prediction model.
Methods
- Guideline development followed published guidance for developing reporting guidelines and established a steering committee; a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and Web of Science generated 129 possible checklist items, which were merged into 76 candidate items.
- A Web-based survey rated the 76 candidate items; a 3-day meeting in June 2011 in Oxford, United Kingdom, was attended by 24 of 25 invited participants, 22 of whom had participated in the survey.
- The checklist was revised by the steering committee and circulated to participants; the final TRIPOD Statement is a 22-item checklist, accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document.
Limitations
- The paper states that TRIPOD is guidelines only for reporting and does not prescribe how to develop or validate a prediction model, nor is it a quality assessment tool to gauge model quality or quantify risk of bias.
- The paper states that methodological issues in developing, validating, and updating prediction models evolve, and TRIPOD will be periodically reappraised and modified if necessary.
- Evident from the text: the paper does not report an empirical evaluation of whether the TRIPOD checklist itself improves reporting quality or clinical use; it presents the development process and the checklist.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Not checked yet · 8 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far
In the paper
“Quantifying the predictive ability of a model on the same data from which the model was developed (often referred to as apparent performance) will tend to give an optimistic estimate of performance, owing to overfitting (too few outcome events relative to the number of candidate predictors) and the use of predictor selection strategies [19].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overfitting, optimism, and miscalibration may also be addressed and accounted for during the model development by applying shrinkage (for example, heuristic or based on bootstrapping techniques) or penalization procedures (for example, ridge regression or lasso) [20].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In both the diagnostic and prognostic setting, estimates of probabilities are rarely based on a single predictor [5].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Internal validation is a necessary part of model development [2].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, none of these guidelines are entirely appropriate for prediction model studies.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting guidelines for prediction model studies: the TRIPOD statement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor.”
- Also stated in: § Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies · boosted
“These and other reviews provide a clear picture that, across different disease areas and different journals, there is a generally poor level of reporting of prediction model studies [6,2–27,29].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6,2–27,29]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies · boosted
In the paper
“It is therefore not surprising, and fortunate, that very few prediction models, relative to the large number of models published, are widely implemented or used in clinical practice [6].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such deficiencies ultimately lead to prediction models that are not or should not be used.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Collins and colleagues [24] evaluated the methodological conduct and reporting of 39 reports published before May 2011 describing the development of models to predict prevalent or incident type 2 diabetes. Reporting was also found to be generally poor, with key details on which predictors were examined, the handling and reporting of missing data, and model-building strategy often poorly described.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bouwmeester and colleagues [23] evaluated 71 reports, published in 2008 in 6 high-impact general medical journals, and likewise observed an overwhelmingly poor level of reporting.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The reporting of studies evaluating the incremental value of specific predictors, beyond established predictors or even beyond existing prediction models [18,42], also fits entirely within the remit of TRIPOD (see the accompanying explanation and elaboration document [43]).”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting guidelines for prediction model studies: the TRIPOD statement
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] source
The Introduction describes evaluating a marker’s incremental value over standard diagnostic characteristics and, ideally, against a previously published prediction model. The Abstract identifies this paper as a review of measures for doing so. The separate assertion about TRIPOD’s remit is attached to citation [43], not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The TRIPOD Statement covers studies that report solely development [12,15], both development and external validation, and solely external validation (with or without updating), of a prediction model [14] (Figure 1).”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > TRIPOD components
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prediction is therefore inherently multivariable.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items that we consider essential for good reporting of studies developing or validating multivariable prediction models (Table 1).”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > TRIPOD components
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The consensus process and expert opinion used to develop TRIPOD yield checklist items that are essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study.
In the paper
“It is a general requirement of reporting of research that other researchers can, if required, replicate all the steps taken and obtain the same results [32].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the focus of the REMARK checklist is primarily on prognostic factors and not prediction models, whereas the GRIPS statement is aimed at risk prediction using genetic risk factors and the specific methodological issues around handling large numbers of genetic variants.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting guidelines for prediction model studies: the TRIPOD statement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Mallett and colleagues [26] examined 47 reports published in 2005 presenting new prediction models in cancer. Reporting was found to be poor, with insufficient information described in all aspects of model development, from descriptions of patient data to statistical modeling methods.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is therefore essential that key details of how a prediction model was developed and validated be clearly reported to enable synthesis and critical appraisal of all relevant information [14,33–36].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting of multivariable prediction model studies
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, some items are relevant only for studies reporting the development of a prediction model (items 10a, 10b, 14, and 15), and others apply only to studies reporting the (external) validation of a prediction model (items 10c, 10e, 12, 13c, 17, and 19a).”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > TRIPOD components
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the survey were presented at a 3-day meeting in June 2011, in Oxford, United Kingdom; it was attended by 24 of the 25 invited participants (22 of whom had participated in the survey). During the 3-day meeting, each of the 76 candidate checklist items was discussed in turn, and a consensus was reached on whether to retain, merge with another item, or omit the item.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Developing the TRIPOD statement
plainn = 25- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While making revisions, conscious efforts were made to harmonize our recommendations with other reporting guidelines, and where possible we chose the same or similar wording for items [37,39,41,45,46].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Developing the TRIPOD statement
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All other items are relevant to all types of prediction model development and validation studies.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > TRIPOD components
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twenty-five experts with a specific interest in prediction models were invited by e-mail to participate in the Web-based survey and to rate the importance of the 76 candidate checklist items. Respondents (24 of 27) included methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Developing the TRIPOD statement
plainn = 25- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 25 invited experts and meeting participants are representative of the relevant expertise for developing a reporting guideline for prediction models.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the meeting, the checklist was revised by the steering committee during numerous face-to-face meetings, and circulated to the participants to ensure it reflected the discussions.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Developing the TRIPOD statement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2 guidelines most closely related to prediction models are REMARK and GRIPS.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting guidelines for prediction model studies: the TRIPOD statement
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From these studies, a list of 129 possible checklist items was generated. The steering committee then merged related items to create a list of 76 candidate items.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Developing the TRIPOD statement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The literature search and item reduction process adequately captured all relevant reporting recommendations for prediction models.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TRIPOD also places much more emphasis on validation studies and the reporting requirements for such studies.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting guidelines for prediction model studies: the TRIPOD statement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We followed published guidance for developing reporting guidelines [44] and established a steering committee (Drs. Collins, Reitsma, Altman, and Moons) to organize and coordinate the development of TRIPOD.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Developing the TRIPOD statement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TRIPOD explicitly covers the development and validation of prediction models for both diagnosis and prognosis, for all medical domains and all types of predictors.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Reporting guidelines for prediction model studies: the TRIPOD statement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An ever-increasing number of studies are evaluating the incremental value of specific predictors, beyond established predictors or even beyond existing prediction models [18,42].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > TRIPOD components
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comprehensive evidence base from existing systematic reviews of prediction models was used to support and justify the rationale for including and illustrating each checklist item.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > The TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of the explanation and elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, and iterations among the authors. Additional revisions were made after sharing the document with the whole TRIPOD group before final approval.”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > The TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The importance of also publishing protocols for developing or validating prediction models, certainly when conducting a prospective study, is slowly being acknowledged [55,56].”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55]
- Not checked yetcites [56]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed.
“Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The consensus process and expert opinion used to develop TRIPOD yield checklist items that are essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study.
“The TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items that we consider essential for good reporting of studies developing or validating multivariable prediction models (Table 1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 25 invited experts and meeting participants are representative of the relevant expertise for developing a reporting guideline for prediction models.
“Twenty-five experts with a specific interest in prediction models were invited by e-mail to participate in the Web-based survey and to rate the importance of the 76 candidate checklist items.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The literature search and item reduction process adequately captured all relevant reporting recommendations for prediction models.
“From these studies, a list of 129 possible checklist items was generated. The steering committee then merged related items to create a list of 76 candidate items.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, checklists and model cards are one way to provide standard best practices for reporting details about ML models.38,39,40”
From Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Current standards for reporting model performance in ML-based science often fall short in addressing issues caused by leakage.”
From Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > TRIPOD components
“The TRIPOD Statement covers studies that report solely development [12,15], both development and external validation, and solely external validation (with or without updating), of a prediction model [14] (Figure 1).”
§ Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement > Background > Prediction model studies
“Figure: Figure 3 Types of prediction model studies covered by the TRIPOD statement. D = development data; V = validation data.”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Self-citationPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Self-citationPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Self-citationvon Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Self-citation2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure
Yancy, C. W., Jessup, M., Bozkurt, B., Butler, J., Casey, D. E., Drazner, M. H., Fonarow, G. C., Geraci, S. A., Horwich, T., Januzzi, J. L., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.019 · Cited by 12,536
Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.ad · Cited by 10,766
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
Self-citationMoons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Self-citation2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk
Goff, D. C., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Bennett, G., Coady, S., D’Agostino, R. B., Gibbons, R., Greenland, P., Lackland, D. T., Levy, D., O’Donnell, C. J., et al. (2014) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.005 · Cited by 4,945
Goff, D. C., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Bennett, G., Coady, S., D’Agostino, R. B., Gibbons, R., Greenland, P., Lackland, D. T., Levy, D., O’Donnell, C. J., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98 · Cited by 3,697
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020) · CHEST · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012 · Cited by 2,214
Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Kapoor, S., & Narayanan, A. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804 · Cited by 1,387
O’Connor, S., Hanlon, P., O’Donnell, C. A., Garcia, S., Glanville, J., & Mair, F. S. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3 · Cited by 636
Diet and depression: Exploring the biological mechanisms of action
Marx, W., Lane, M., Hockey, M., Aslam, H., Berk, M., Walder, K., Borsini, A., Firth, J., Pariante, C. M., Berding, K., et al. (2021) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-020-00925-x · Cited by 685
de Vries, T. I., Cooney, M. T., Selmer, R. M., Hageman, S. H. J., Pennells, L. A. M., Wood, A., Kaptoge, S. K., Xu, Z., Westerink, J., Rabanal, K. S., et al. (2021) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab312 · Cited by 682
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4284921
- OpenAlex
- W2019694480
- Semantic Scholar
- 77e57b765074ac83f1053089440ab39c25fb8fa0
- Cited by
- 1,927
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 213 · 2025: 303 · 2024: 330 · 2023: 295 · 2022: 236 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 101 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 47.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Cancer Research UK (16895, C5529)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0508-10259, NF-SI-0513-10131)
- ZonMw (91208004)
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (918.10.615)
- Medical Research Council
- 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
- TRIPOD statement, multivariable prediction models, reporting quality, diagnostic model, prognostic model, reporting checklist, risk of bias, prediction model validation, clinical decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Diagnosis, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Prognosis, Multivariate Analysis, Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
