Skip to main content

Table 2 Reporting of essential items applicable to both derivation and validation studies

From: Quality and transparency of reporting derivation and validation prognostic studies of recurrent stroke in patients with TIA and minor stroke: a systematic review

Characteristic

Number (%)

N = 100

General information

 Rationale provided for the derivation or validation of the model

  Yes

66 (66.0)

 Source of data

  Prospective cohort

60 (60.0)

  Retrospective cohort—registry data

17 (17.0)

  Retrospective cohort—data from past studies

12 (12.0)

  Retrospective cohort—chart review

10 (10.0)

  Unclear or not reported

1 (1.0)

 Inclusion criteria (definition used for selection)

  TIA—Classical time-based definition

92 (92.0)

  TIA—Tissue-based definition

5 (5.0)

  Minor Stroke—Classical time-based definition

8 (8.0)

  Minor Stroke—Tissue-based definition

1 (1.0)

  Unclear or not reported

7 (7.0)

 Time-based versus tissue-based inclusion criteria

  Time-based TIA/minor stroke

88 (88.0)

  Tissue-based TIA/minor stroke

5 (5.0)

  Unclear or not reported

7 (7.0)

 TIA versus minor stroke inclusion criteria

  TIA only

85 (85.0)

  Both TIA and minor stroke

8 (8.0)

  Unclear or not reported

7 (7.0)

 Definition used for outcome of stroke

  Clinical definition

73 (73.0)

  Tissue-based definition

7 (7.0)

  Unclear or not reported

20 (20.0)

 Time of outcome prediction

  2-day

28 (28.0)

  3-day

2 (2.0)

  7-day

66 (66.0)

  14-day

2 (2.0)

  28-day

4 (4.0)

  30-day

16 (16.0)

  90-day

73 (73.0)

  Additional outcome periods considered in study

8 (8.0)

   1-year

2 (2.0)

   3-year

4 (4.0)

   14-year

2 (2.0)

 Recruitment method

  Consecutive participants

50 (50.0)

  Nonconsecutive sample

1 (1.0)

  Unclear or not reported

49 (49.0)

 Number of sites

  1

41 (41.0)

  2

2 (2.0)

  3

3 (3.0)

  4

0 (0.0)

  5–9

13 (13.0)

  10+

38 (38.0)

  Unclear or not reported

3 (3.0)

 Setting

  Tertiary

48 (48.0)

  Community

10 (10.0)

  Tertiary and community

7 (7.0)

  Unclear or not reported

35 (35.0)

 Location

  Urban

50 (50.0)

  Rural

0 (0.0)

  Urban and rural

8 (8.0)

  Unclear or not reported

42 (42.0)

 Study dates were provided

  Yes

95 (95.0)

Outcome to be predicted

 Same outcome definition (and method of measurement) used in all patients

  Yes

44 (44.0)

 Explicitly stated that outcome was assessed without knowledge of the candidate predictors (i.e. blinded)

  Yes

24 (24.0)

Candidate predictors

 All measurement predictors defined with information on how to measure

  Yes

63 (63.0)

 All measurement predictors defined in terms of when to measure (e.g. pre-hospital, blood pressure measurement time, etc)

  Yes

47 (47.0)

 Explicitly stated that predictors were assessed blinded for outcome, and for each other

  Yes

12 (12.0)

Sample size

 Sample size justification provided (practical justification such as using existing study cohort or an RCT data is considered justified)

  Yes

49 (49.0)

 Flow of participants provided through a flow diagram

 

  Yes

21 (21.0)

Missing data

 Number of participants with any missing value (on any of predictors and outcomes) reported

  Yes

34 (34.0)

 Number of participants with missing data for each predictor reported

  Yes

28 (28.0)

 Number of participants lost to follow-up reported*

  Yes

17 (27.9)

  No, unclear or not reported

44 (72.1)

  Not applicable (retrospective cohort)

39 (39.0)

 Handling of missing data*

  Complete case analysis

14 (15.1)

  Predictor with missing values omitted

0 (0.0)

  Single imputation

0 (0.0)

  Multiple imputation

1 (1.1)

  Not handled, unclear, or not reported

78 (83.9)

 Not applicable (there were no missing data)

7 (7.0)

Model performance

 Method used for calibration

  Calibration plot

0 (0.0)

  Calibration slope

0 (0.0)

  Hosmer-Lemeshow test

5 (5.0)

  Unclear or not reported

95 (95.0)

 Method used for discrimination

  C-statistic/AUC-ROC

79 (79.0)

  D-statistic

0 (0.0)

  Log-rank

2 (2.0)

  Unclear or not reported

19 (19.0)

 Classification measures reported

  Sensitivity

28 (28.0)

  Specificity

28 (28.0)

  Predictive values

11 (11.0)

  Net reclassification improvement

13 (13.0)

  Unclear or not reported

60 (60.0)

 A priori cut points used for the classification measures

  Yes

25 (25.0)

 Confidence intervals (CIs) provided for the performance measures

  Yes

65 (65.0)

  1. *Denominator is the applicable cases