临床预测模型的外部验证、影响评估和临床应用:一项前瞻性队列研究。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111902
Banafsheh Arshi, Laura Elizabeth Cowley, Eline Rijnhart, Kelly Reeve, Luc J Smits, Laure Wynants
{"title":"临床预测模型的外部验证、影响评估和临床应用:一项前瞻性队列研究。","authors":"Banafsheh Arshi, Laura Elizabeth Cowley, Eline Rijnhart, Kelly Reeve, Luc J Smits, Laure Wynants","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to assess paths taken by clinical prediction models (CPMs) after development by quantifying external validation, impact assessment, and utilization in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>We followed a random sample of 109 regression-based CPM development articles published between 1995 and 2020 by performing a forward citation search. We estimated 5- and 10-year probabilities of validation and impact assessment after development of CPMs using Kaplan-Meier analysis. In addition, we conducted a survey among the authors of the development articles to determine whether the CPMs had been used in clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen (17%) CPM development articles reported a CPM that was externally validated after development. Five- and 10-year probabilities of validation were 0.13 (0.06-0.19) and 0.16 (0.08-0.23), respectively. Only 1 article had a CPM with impact assessment during follow-up (10-year probability: 0.01 [0-0.04]). Among the 34 (31%) articles with a survey response, 17 (50%) had CPMs that had been used in clinical practice, in a median of five sites (interquartile range: 1-347). Of these models, only 4 (24%) were externally validated, and none had undergone impact assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite evidence of utilization in clinical settings, few models are externally validated after development, and published impact assessment is scarce. To prevent compromising patient safety, it is crucial to intensify efforts to promote external validation and impact assessment of prediction models.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"111902"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation, impact assessment and clinical utilization of clinical prediction models: a prospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Banafsheh Arshi, Laura Elizabeth Cowley, Eline Rijnhart, Kelly Reeve, Luc J Smits, Laure Wynants\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111902\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to assess paths taken by clinical prediction models (CPMs) after development by quantifying external validation, impact assessment, and utilization in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>We followed a random sample of 109 regression-based CPM development articles published between 1995 and 2020 by performing a forward citation search. We estimated 5- and 10-year probabilities of validation and impact assessment after development of CPMs using Kaplan-Meier analysis. In addition, we conducted a survey among the authors of the development articles to determine whether the CPMs had been used in clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen (17%) CPM development articles reported a CPM that was externally validated after development. Five- and 10-year probabilities of validation were 0.13 (0.06-0.19) and 0.16 (0.08-0.23), respectively. Only 1 article had a CPM with impact assessment during follow-up (10-year probability: 0.01 [0-0.04]). Among the 34 (31%) articles with a survey response, 17 (50%) had CPMs that had been used in clinical practice, in a median of five sites (interquartile range: 1-347). Of these models, only 4 (24%) were externally validated, and none had undergone impact assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite evidence of utilization in clinical settings, few models are externally validated after development, and published impact assessment is scarce. To prevent compromising patient safety, it is crucial to intensify efforts to promote external validation and impact assessment of prediction models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"111902\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111902\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111902","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们旨在通过量化外部验证、影响评估和临床应用来评估临床预测模型(CPM)开发后所采取的路径。研究设计和设置:我们随机抽取了1995-2020年间发表的109篇基于回归的CPM发展文章,进行了引文前向检索。我们使用Kaplan-Meier分析估计了cpm开发后5年和10年的验证和影响评估概率。此外,我们对发展文章的作者进行了调查,以确定cpm是否已在临床环境中使用。结果:18篇(17%)CPM开发文章报道了开发后外部验证的CPM。5年和10年的验证概率分别为0.13(0.06 ~ 0.19)和0.16(0.08 ~ 0.23)。只有一篇文章的CPM在随访期间进行了影响评估(十年概率:0.01[0 ~ 0.04])。在34篇(31%)有调查回应的文章中,17篇(50%)有临床实践中使用的cpm,中位数为5个站点(IQR: 1-347)。在这些模型中,只有4个(24%)得到了外部验证,没有一个进行过影响评估。结论:尽管有临床应用的证据,但很少有模型在开发后得到外部验证,发表的影响评估也很少。为了防止危及患者安全,加强努力促进预测模型的外部验证和影响评估至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
External validation, impact assessment and clinical utilization of clinical prediction models: a prospective cohort study.

Objectives: We aimed to assess paths taken by clinical prediction models (CPMs) after development by quantifying external validation, impact assessment, and utilization in clinical practice.

Study design and setting: We followed a random sample of 109 regression-based CPM development articles published between 1995 and 2020 by performing a forward citation search. We estimated 5- and 10-year probabilities of validation and impact assessment after development of CPMs using Kaplan-Meier analysis. In addition, we conducted a survey among the authors of the development articles to determine whether the CPMs had been used in clinical settings.

Results: Eighteen (17%) CPM development articles reported a CPM that was externally validated after development. Five- and 10-year probabilities of validation were 0.13 (0.06-0.19) and 0.16 (0.08-0.23), respectively. Only 1 article had a CPM with impact assessment during follow-up (10-year probability: 0.01 [0-0.04]). Among the 34 (31%) articles with a survey response, 17 (50%) had CPMs that had been used in clinical practice, in a median of five sites (interquartile range: 1-347). Of these models, only 4 (24%) were externally validated, and none had undergone impact assessment.

Conclusion: Despite evidence of utilization in clinical settings, few models are externally validated after development, and published impact assessment is scarce. To prevent compromising patient safety, it is crucial to intensify efforts to promote external validation and impact assessment of prediction models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信