QUAPAS: An Adaptation of the QUADAS-2 Tool to Assess Prognostic Accuracy Studies

被引:44
作者
Lee, Jenny [1 ]
Mulder, Frits [2 ]
Leeflang, Mariska [1 ]
Wolff, Robert [3 ]
Whiting, Penny [4 ]
Bossuyt, Patrick M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Data Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Univ Med Ctr, Dept Vasc Med, Cardiovasc Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Kleijnen Systemat Reviews, Escrick, England
[4] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Bristol, Avon, England
关键词
COMPETING RISKS METHODS; PREDICTION MODEL; FIBROSIS SCORE; BIAS; MORTALITY; NAFLD; APPLICABILITY; EXPLANATION; PROBAST; EVENTS;
D O I
10.7326/M22-0276
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Whereas diagnostic tests help detect the cause of signs and symptoms, prognostic tests assist in evaluating the probable course of the disease and future outcome. Studies to evaluate prognostic tests are longitudinal, which introduces sources of bias different from those for diagnostic accuracy studies. At present, systematic reviews of prognostic tests often use the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of included studies because no equivalent instrument exists for prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) is an adaptation of QUADAS-2 for prognostic accuracy studies. Questions likely to identify bias were evaluated in parallel and collated from QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies) and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and paired to the corresponding question (or domain) in QUADAS-2. A steering group conducted and reviewed 3 rounds of modifications before arriving at the final set of domains and signaling questions. QUAPAS follows the same steps as QUADAS-2: Specify the review question, tailor the tool, draw a flow diagram, judge risk of bias, and identify applicability concerns. Risk of bias is judged across the following 5 domains: participants, index test, outcome, flow and timing, and analysis. Signaling questions assist the final judgment for each domain. Applicability concerns are assessed for the first 4 domains. The authors used QUAPAS in parallel with QUADAS-2 and QUIPS in a systematic review of prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS improved the assessment of the flow and timing domain and flagged a study at risk of bias in the new analysis domain. Judgment of risk of bias in the analysis domain was challenging because of sparse reporting of statistical methods.
引用
收藏
页码:1010 / +
页数:10
相关论文
共 48 条
[21]   Prognosis research: Why is Dr. Lydgate still waiting? [J].
Hemingway, Harry .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (12) :1229-1238
[22]   Time-dependent ROC curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications [J].
Kamarudin, Adina Najwa ;
Cox, Trevor ;
Kolamunnage-Dona, Ruwanthi .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2017, 17
[23]   Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study [J].
Knottnerus, JA ;
Muris, JW .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (11) :1118-1128
[24]   Prognostic accuracy of FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score and APRI for NAFLD-related events: A systematic review [J].
Lee, Jenny ;
Vali, Yasaman ;
Boursier, Jerome ;
Spijker, Rene ;
Anstee, Quentin M. ;
Bossuyt, Patrick M. ;
Zafarmand, Mohammad H. .
LIVER INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 41 (02) :261-270
[25]   Censoring issues in survival analysis [J].
Leung, KM ;
Elashoff, RM ;
Afifi, AA .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1997, 18 :83-104
[26]  
Mack C, 2018, Managing missing data in patient registries: addendum to registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide, V3rd, DOI DOI 10.23970/AHRQREGISTRIESMISSINGDATA
[27]   Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing-steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: Implications for prognosis and clinical management [J].
McPherson, Stuart ;
Hardy, Tim ;
Henderson, Elsbeth ;
Burt, Alastair D. ;
Day, Christopher P. ;
Anstee, Quentin M. .
JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2015, 62 (05) :1148-1155
[28]   Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK) [J].
McShane, LM ;
Altman, DG ;
Sauerbrei, W ;
Taube, SE ;
Gion, M ;
Clark, GM .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2005, 97 (16) :1180-1184
[29]   PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration [J].
Moons, Karel G. M. ;
Wolff, Robert F. ;
Riley, Richard D. ;
Whiting, Penny F. ;
Westwood, Marie ;
Collins, Gary S. ;
Reitsma, Johannes B. ;
Kleijnen, Jos ;
Mallett, Sue .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 170 (01) :W1-W33
[30]   Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice [J].
Moons, Karel G. M. ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Vergouwe, Yvonne ;
Royston, Patrick .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 338 :1487-1490