Published May 5, 2022 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Does poor methodological quality of prediction modeling studies translate to poor model performance? An illustration in traumatic brain injury

  • 1. Department of Public Health, Center for Medical Decision Making, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • 2. Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies/Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA
  • 3. Department of Epidemiology, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Description

Background: Prediction modeling studies often have methodological limitations, which may compromise model performance in new patients and settings. We aimed to examine the relation between methodological quality of model development studies and their performance at external validation.

Methods: We systematically searched for externally validated multivariable prediction models that predict functional outcome following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Risk of bias and applicability of development studies was assessed with the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Each model was rated for its presentation with sufficient detail to be used in practice. Model performance was described in terms of discrimination (AUC), and calibration. Delta AUC (dAUC) was calculated to quantify the percentage change in discrimination between development and validation for all models. Generalized estimation equations (GEE) were used to examine the relation between methodological quality and dAUC while controlling for clustering.

Results: We included 54 publications, presenting ten development studies of 18 prediction models, and 52 external validation studies, including 245 unique validations. Two development studies (four models) were found to have low risk of bias (RoB). The other eight publications (14 models) showed high or unclear RoB. The median dAUC was positive in low RoB models (dAUC 8%, [IQR − 4% to 21%]) and negative in high RoB models (dAUC − 18%, [IQR − 43% to 2%]). The GEE showed a larger average negative change in discrimination for high RoB models (− 32% (95% CI: − 48 to − 15) and unclear RoB models (− 13% (95% CI: − 16 to − 10)) compared to that seen in low RoB models.

Conclusion: Lower methodological quality at model development associates with poorer model performance at external validation. Our findings emphasize the importance of adherence to methodological principles and reporting guidelines in prediction modeling studies.

Files

41512_2022_Article_122.pdf

Files (982.8 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:cc9d19997b70e6d081fb06c000ad8c8e
116.9 kB Download
md5:ff7df355ff7b11201a538823b0c4d7cf
851.6 kB Preview Download
md5:6cb1de8d8225a28f2f493a1683a9f62c
14.3 kB Download

Additional details

Funding

European Commission
CENTER-TBI - Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI 602150