首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Multiple Score Comparison: a network meta-analysis approach to comparison and external validation of prognostic scores
【24h】

Multiple Score Comparison: a network meta-analysis approach to comparison and external validation of prognostic scores

机译:多重评分比较:一种网络荟萃分析方法,用于比较和外部验证预后评分

获取原文
       

摘要

Prediction models and prognostic scores have been increasingly popular in both clinical practice and clinical research settings, for example to aid in risk-based decision making or control for confounding. In many medical fields, a large number of prognostic scores are available, but practitioners may find it difficult to choose between them due to lack of external validation as well as lack of comparisons between them. Borrowing methodology from network meta-analysis, we describe an approach to Multiple Score Comparison meta-analysis (MSC) which permits concurrent external validation and comparisons of prognostic scores using individual patient data (IPD) arising from a large-scale international collaboration. We describe the challenges in adapting network meta-analysis to the MSC setting, for instance the need to explicitly include correlations between the scores on a cohort level, and how to deal with many multi-score studies. We propose first using IPD to make cohort-level aggregate discrimination or calibration scores, comparing all to a common comparator. Then, standard network meta-analysis techniques can be applied, taking care to consider correlation structures in cohorts with multiple scores. Transitivity, consistency and heterogeneity are also examined. We provide a clinical application, comparing prognostic scores for 3-year mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using data from a large-scale collaborative initiative. We focus on the discriminative properties of the prognostic scores. Our results show clear differences in performance, with ADO and eBODE showing higher discrimination with respect to mortality than other considered scores. The assumptions of transitivity and local and global consistency were not violated. Heterogeneity was small. We applied a network meta-analytic methodology to externally validate and concurrently compare the prognostic properties of clinical scores. Our large-scale external validation indicates that the scores with the best discriminative properties to predict 3?year mortality in patients with COPD are ADO and eBODE.
机译:预测模型和预后评分在临床实践和临床研究环境中都越来越流行,例如,有助于基于风险的决策或控制混淆​​。在许多医学领域中,可以使用大量的预后评分,但是由于缺乏外部验证以及比较之间的比较,从业者可能很难在它们之间进行选择。从网络荟萃分析中借鉴的方法论,我们描述了一种多重评分比较荟萃分析(MSC)的方法,该方法允许使用大规模国际合作产生的单个患者数据(IPD)同时进行外部验证和预后评分的比较。我们描述了使网络元分析适应MSC设置所面临的挑战,例如,需要明确纳入同类人群中得分之间的相关性,以及如何处理许多多得分研究。我们建议首先使用IPD进行队列级别的总体判别或校准评分,然后将其与通用比较器进行比较。然后,可以应用标准的网络元分析技术,同时注意考虑具有多个分数的队列中的相关结构。还检查了传递性,一致性和异质性。我们提供了一项临床应用,使用来自大型协作计划的数据,比较了慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者3年死亡率的预后评分。我们关注预后评分的判别性质。我们的结果显示出明显的性能差异,ADO和eBODE在死亡率方面的歧视性高于其他考虑的得分。不违反传递性以及本地和全局一致性的假设。异质性很小。我们应用网络荟萃分析方法从外部验证并同时比较临床评分的预后特征。我们的大规模外部验证表明,具有最佳判别性质以预测COPD患者3年死亡率的评分是ADO和eBODE。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号