Abstract
The interest in prognosis research has been steadily growing during the past few decades because of its impact on clinical decision making. However, since the methodology of prognosis research is still incompletely defined, the quality of published prognosis studies is largely unsatisfactory. Seven major domain for risk of bias in prognosis research have been identified, including study participation, attrition, selection of candidate predictors, outcome definition, confounding factors, analysis, and interpretation of results. The methodology for performing prognostic studies is currently aimed at avoiding such potential biases. Amongst methodologic requirements in prognosis research, the following should be considered most relevant: beforehand publication of the study protocol including the full statistical plan; inclusion of patients at a similar point along the course of the disease; rationale and biological plausibility of candidate predictors; complete information; control of overfitting and underfitting; adequate data handling and analysis; publication of the original data. Validation and analysis of the impact that prediction models have on patient management, are key steps for translation of prognosis research into clinical practice. Finally, transparent reporting of prognostic studies is essential for assessing reliability, applicability and generalizability of study results, and recommendations are now available for this aim.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hayden JA, Cote P, Bombardier C (2006) Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 144:427–437
Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Quality of reporting of cancer prognostic marker studies: association with reported prognostic effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:236–243
Hingorani DA, van der Windt DA, Riley RD, Moons KGM, Steyerberg EW, Schroter S et al (2013) Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research. BMJ 346:e5793
Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, Pietrni MC, Williams R (1973) Transection of the esophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg 60:646–649
Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL et al (2001) A model to predict survival in patients with endstage liver disease. Hepatology 33:464–470
D’Amico G, Garcia-Tsao G, Pagliaro L (2006) Natural history and prognostic factors in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studies. J Hepatol 44:217–231
Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Collins GS, Ioannidis PA, Macaskill P et al (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Int Med 162:W1–W73
Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet 359:341–345
Di Pietro NA (2010) Methods in epidemiology: observational study designs. Pharmacotherapy 30:973–984
D’Amico G, Pasta L, Morabito A, D’Amico M, Caltagirone M, Malizia G et al (2014) Competing risks and prognostic stages in cirrhosis: a 25-year inception cohort study of 494 patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 39:1180–1193
D’Amico G, Morabito A, Pagliaro L, Marubini E, The liver study group of “V Cervello Hospital” (1986) Survival and prognostic indicators of compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci 31:468–475
Ratib S, Fleming KM, Crooks JC, Aithal G, West J (2014) 1 and 5 year survival estimates for people with cirrhosis of the liver in England, 1998–2009: a large population study. J Hepatol 60:282–289
Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T (2006) Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing data. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1087–1091
Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: developing a prognostic model. BMJ 338:b604
Harrell FE Jr (1985) Regression models for prognostic prediction: advantages, problems, and suggested solutions. Cancer Treat Rep 69:1071–1077
Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR (1993) The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med 118:201–210
Moons KGM, Kengne AP, Woodward M, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman GD, Grobbee DE (2012) Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart 98:683–690
Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W (2006) Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med 25:127–141
Jepsen P, Wilstrup H, Andersen PK (2015) The clinical course of cirrhosis. The importance of multistate models and competing risks analysis. Hepatology 62:292–302
Pintile M (2006) Competing risks. A practical perspective. Wiley, Chichester
Fine JP, Gray RJ (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of competing risk. J Am Stat Ass 94:496–509
Moons KGM, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why and how? BMJ 339:b375
Harrel FE, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Tutorial in biostatistics. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387
Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA (1999) Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 130:515–524
Steyerberg WE, Vickers AJ, Cook N, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N et al (2010) Assessing the performance of prediction models. A framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21:128–138
Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 338:b605
Moons KGM, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman GD, Woodward M (2012) Risk prediction models: II. Esternal validation, model updating and impact assessment. Heart 98:691–698
Toll DB, Janssen KJM, Vergouwe Y, Moons KGM (2008) Validating, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 61:1085–1094
Reilly BM, Evans AT (2006) Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Int Med 144:201–209
Moons KGM, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. BMJ 338:b606
McGinnTH Guyatt GH, Wyer PC et al (2000) User’s guide to medical literature: XXII. How to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence based medicine working group. JAMA 284:79–84
Campbel MK, Elborne DR, Altman DC (2014) CONSORT statement extension to cluster randomized trials. BMJ 328:702–708
Hall LM, Jung RT, Leese GP (2003) Controlled trial of effect of documented cardiovascular risk scores on prescribing. BMJ 326:251–252
Toll DB, Janssen KJM, Vergouwe Y, Moons KGM (2008) Validating, Updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 61:1085–1094
Collins GS, Reistma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Int Med 162:55–63
Hemingway H, Riley DR, Altman DG (2009) Ten steps towards improving prognosis research. BMJ 339:b4184
Hemingway H, Croft P, Perel P, Hayden JA, Abrams K, Timmis A et al (2013) Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ 346:e5595
Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, Abrams K, Kyzas PA et al (2013) Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research. PLoS Med 10(2):e1001380
Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, Hayden JA, Perel P, Schroter S et al (2013) Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med 10(2):e1001381
PLOS Medicine Editors (2014) Observational studies: getting clear about transparency. PLoS Med 11(8):e1001711
The Nordic Trial Alliance Working Group 6 on transparency and registration. 2015 http://nta.nordforsk.org/projects/FINALNTAWPG30032015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statement of human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
D’Amico, G., Malizia, G. & D’Amico, M. Prognosis research and risk of bias. Intern Emerg Med 11, 251–260 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1404-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1404-z