Cited by 594Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Net Reclassification Improvement: Computation, Interpretation, and Controversies: A Literature Review and Clinician's Guide

Open access
Leening, Maarten J.G., Vedder, Moniek M., Witteman, Jacqueline C.M., Pencina, Michael J., Steyerberg, Ewout W.·2014·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

The net reclassification improvement (NRI) is an increasingly popular measure for evaluating improvements in risk predictions. This article details a review of 67 publications in high-impact general clinical journals that considered the NRI. Incomplete reporting of NRI methods, incorrect calculation, and common misinterpretations were found. To aid improved applications of the NRI, the article elaborates on several aspects of the computation and interpretation in various settings. Limitations and controversies are discussed, including the effect of miscalibration of prediction models, the use of the continuous NRI and “clinical NRI,” and the relation with decision analytic measures. A systematic approach toward presenting NRI analysis is proposed: Detail and motivate the methods used for computation of the NRI, use clinically meaningful risk cutoffs for the category-based NRI, report both NRI components, address issues of calibration, and do not interpret the overall NRI as a percentage of the study population reclassified. Promising NRI findings need to be followed with decision analytic or formal cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m13-1522

Cites

140 of 140 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 141 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leening, M. J. G., Vedder, M. M., Witteman, J. C. M., Pencina, M. J., & Steyerberg, E. W.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2014-01-21
Volume
160
Issue
2
Pages
122-131
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2103645914
Cited by
594
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 23
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
net reclassification improvement, risk prediction model, model calibration, cost-effectiveness, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Models, Statistical, Risk Assessment

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