Model development studies (N = 10 development studies) |
---|
Overall risk of bias of development studies |
High | 6 | 60% |
Low | 2 | 20% |
Unclear | 2 | 20% |
Applicability of development studies |
High | 3 | 30% |
Low | 7 | 70% |
Unclear | 0 | 0% |
Usability of models |
Research | | |
Yes | 4 | 40% |
No | 6 | 60% |
Clinical practice |
Yes | 9 | 90% |
No | 1 | 10% |
External validation studies (N= 245) |
Similarity in study design between development and validation cohorts |
Similar | 147 | 60% |
Cohort to trial | 26 | 11% |
Trial to cohort | 71 | 29% |
NA | 1 | |
Relatedness |
Related | 35 | 14% |
Moderately related | 45 | 18% |
Distantly related | 164 | 67% |
NA | 1 | |
- Risk of bias: risk of bias was assessed with the original PROBAST (Supplementary Table 3)
- Usability: The model was deemed usable in research if the full model equation or sufficient information to extract the baseline risk (intercept) and individual predictor effects was reported, and usable in clinical practice if an alternative presentation of the model was included (e.g., a nomogram, score chart or web calculator)
- Relatedness: To judge relatedness we created a relatedness rubric, aiming to capture various levels or relatedness by dividing the validation studies into three categories: “related,” “moderately related,” and “distantly related” (Supplementary Table 4)