{"title":"Systematic Review of Prognosis Models in Predicting Tooth Loss in Periodontitis.","authors":"D Y Chow, J R H Tay, G G Nascimento","doi":"10.1177/00220345241237448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study reviews and appraises the methodological and reporting quality of prediction models for tooth loss in periodontitis patients, including the use of regression and machine learning models. Studies involving prediction modeling for tooth loss in periodontitis patients were screened. A search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL up to 12 February 2022, with citation chasing. Studies exploring model development or external validation studies for models assessing tooth loss in periodontitis patients for clinical use at any time point, with all prediction horizons in English, were considered. Studies were excluded if models were not developed for use in periodontitis patients, were not developed or validated on any data set, predicted outcomes other than tooth loss, or were prognostic factor studies. The CHARMS checklist was used for data extraction, TRIPOD to assess reporting quality, and PROBAST to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4,661 records were screened, and 45 studies were included. Only 26 studies reported any kind of performance measure. The median C-statistic reported was 0.671 (range, 0.57-0.97). All studies were at a high risk of bias due to inappropriate handling of missing data (96%), inappropriate evaluation of model performance (92%), and lack of accounting for model overfitting in evaluating model performance (68%). Many models predicting tooth loss in periodontitis are available, but studies evaluating these models are at a high risk of bias. Model performance measures are likely to be overly optimistic and might not be replicated in clinical use. While this review is unable to recommend any model for clinical practice, it has collated the existing models and their model performance at external validation and their associated sample sizes, which would be helpful to identify promising models for future external validation studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":94075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dental research","volume":" ","pages":"596-604"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dental research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345241237448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study reviews and appraises the methodological and reporting quality of prediction models for tooth loss in periodontitis patients, including the use of regression and machine learning models. Studies involving prediction modeling for tooth loss in periodontitis patients were screened. A search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL up to 12 February 2022, with citation chasing. Studies exploring model development or external validation studies for models assessing tooth loss in periodontitis patients for clinical use at any time point, with all prediction horizons in English, were considered. Studies were excluded if models were not developed for use in periodontitis patients, were not developed or validated on any data set, predicted outcomes other than tooth loss, or were prognostic factor studies. The CHARMS checklist was used for data extraction, TRIPOD to assess reporting quality, and PROBAST to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4,661 records were screened, and 45 studies were included. Only 26 studies reported any kind of performance measure. The median C-statistic reported was 0.671 (range, 0.57-0.97). All studies were at a high risk of bias due to inappropriate handling of missing data (96%), inappropriate evaluation of model performance (92%), and lack of accounting for model overfitting in evaluating model performance (68%). Many models predicting tooth loss in periodontitis are available, but studies evaluating these models are at a high risk of bias. Model performance measures are likely to be overly optimistic and might not be replicated in clinical use. While this review is unable to recommend any model for clinical practice, it has collated the existing models and their model performance at external validation and their associated sample sizes, which would be helpful to identify promising models for future external validation studies.