Prediction Models for Prognosis of Cervical Cancer: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

被引:9
|
作者
He, Bingjie [1 ]
Chen, Weiye [1 ]
Liu, Lili [1 ]
Hou, Zheng [2 ]
Zhu, Haiyan [3 ]
Cheng, Haozhe [3 ]
Zhang, Yixi [3 ]
Zhan, Siyan [1 ]
Wang, Shengfeng [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ Third Hosp, Dept Obster & Gynecol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Hlth Sci Ctr, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
cervical cancer; prediction model; predictors; risk of bias; statistical analysis; RISK; NOMOGRAM; CARCINOMA; TOOL; APPLICABILITY; VALIDATION; RECURRENCE; SURVIVAL; PROBAST; BIAS;
D O I
10.3389/fpubh.2021.654454
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective: This work aims to systematically identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models for cervical cancer and provide a reference for clinical practice and future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 2020 and included studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for cervical cancer. Two reviewers extracted information based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modeling Studies checklist and assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Fifty-six eligible articles were identified, describing the development of 77 prognostic models and 27 external validation efforts. The 77 prognostic models focused on three types of cervical cancer patients at different stages, i.e., patients with early-stage cervical cancer (n = 29; 38%), patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (n = 27; 35%), and all-stage cervical cancer patients (n = 21; 27%). Among the 77 models, the most frequently used predictors were lymph node status (n = 57; 74%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (n = 42; 55%), histological types (n = 38; 49%), and tumor size (n = 37; 48%). The number of models that applied internal validation, presented a full equation, and assessed model calibration was 52 (68%), 16 (21%), and 45 (58%), respectively. Twenty-four models were externally validated, among which three were validated twice. None of the models were assessed with an overall low risk of bias. The Prediction Model of Failure in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer model was externally validated twice, with acceptable performance, and seemed to be the most reliable. Conclusions: Methodological details including internal validation, sample size, and handling of missing data need to be emphasized on, and external validation is needed to facilitate the application and generalization of models for cervical cancer.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Prediction Models for Physical, Cognitive, and Mental Health Impairments After Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Haines, Kimberley J.
    Hibbert, Elizabeth
    McPeake, Joanne
    Anderson, Brian J.
    Bienvenu, Oscar Joseph
    Andrews, Adair
    Brummel, Nathan E.
    Ferrante, Lauren E.
    Hopkins, Ramona O.
    Hough, Catherine L.
    Jackson, James
    Mikkelsen, Mark E.
    Leggett, Nina
    Montgomery-Yates, Ashley
    Needham, Dale M.
    Sevin, Carla M.
    Skidmore, Becky
    Still, Mary
    van Smeden, Maarten
    Collins, Gary S.
    Harhay, Michael O.
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 48 (12) : 1871 - 1880
  • [32] Prediction models for perineal lacerations during childbirth: A systematic review and critical appraisal
    Hu, Yinchu
    Lu, Hong
    Ren, Lihua
    Yang, Minghui
    Shen, Meidi
    Huang, Jing
    Huang, Qifang
    Fu, Li
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2023, 145
  • [33] Prediction models for sarcopenia risk in dialysis patients: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Hou, Zhuoer
    Li, Xiaoyan
    Yang, Lili
    Liu, Ting
    Lv, Hangpeng
    Sun, Qiuhua
    AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 2025, 37 (01)
  • [34] Predictive models for the incidence of Parkinson's disease: systematic review and critical appraisal
    Chen, Yancong
    Gao, Yinyan
    Sun, Xuemei
    Liu, Zhenhua
    Zhang, Zixuan
    Qin, Lang
    Song, Jinlu
    Wang, Huan
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    REVIEWS IN THE NEUROSCIENCES, 2023, 34 (01) : 63 - 74
  • [35] Prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated by systemic therapy: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Li, Li
    Li, Xiaomi
    Li, Wendong
    Ding, Xiaoyan
    Zhang, Yongchao
    Chen, Jinglong
    Li, Wei
    BMC CANCER, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [36] Systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction models used in cervical cancer
    Jha, Ashish Kumar
    Mithun, Sneha
    Sherkhane, Umeshkumar B.
    Jaiswar, Vinay
    Osong, Biche
    Purandare, Nilendu
    Kannan, Sadhana
    Prabhash, Kumar
    Gupta, Sudeep
    Vanneste, Ben
    Rangarajan, Venkatesh
    Dekker, Andre
    Wee, Leonard
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICINE, 2023, 139
  • [37] Clinical Prediction Models for Nonmortality Outcomes in Older Adults With Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review
    Kaizu, Yoichi
    Tamura, Shuntaro
    Saito, Hiroyuki
    Hayashi, Shota
    Iwamoto, Hiroki
    Miyata, Kazuhiro
    JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY SERIES A-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 78 (12): : 2363 - 2370
  • [38] Risk Prediction Models for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Espressivo, Aufia
    Pan, Z. Sienna
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Harrison, Hannah
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (03)
  • [39] Prognostic prediction models for pregnancy complications in women with gestational diabetes: a protocol for systematic review, critical appraisal and meta-analysis
    Cooray, Shamil D.
    Boyle, Jacqueline A.
    Soldatos, Georgia
    Wijeyaratne, Lihini A.
    Teede, Helena J.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, 8 (01)
  • [40] Risk Prediction Models for Sarcopenia in Dialysis Patients: A Systematic Review
    Leng, Ying-Jie
    Wang, Guo-Rong
    Xie, Ruo-Nan
    Jiang, Xin
    Li, Cheng-Xiang
    Nie, Zhuo-Miao
    Li, Tao
    JOURNAL OF RENAL NUTRITION, 2025, 35 (01) : 146 - 155