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
  • [41] Risk Prediction Model for Esophageal Cancer Among General Population: A Systematic Review
    Chen, Ru
    Zheng, Rongshou
    Zhou, Jiachen
    Li, Minjuan
    Shao, Dantong
    Li, Xinqing
    Wang, Shengfeng
    Wei, Wenqiang
    FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 9
  • [42] A critical appraisal of the clinical applicability and risk of bias of the predictive models for mortality and recurrence in patients with oropharyngeal cancer: Systematic review
    Palazon-Bru, Antonio
    Mares-Garcia, Emma
    Lopez-Bru, David
    Mares-Arambul, Enrique
    Folgado-de la Rosa, David M.
    de los Angeles Carbonell-Torregrosa, Maria
    Gil-Guillen, Vicente F.
    HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2020, 42 (04): : 763 - 773
  • [43] Prediction models for identifying medication overuse or medication overuse headache in migraine patients: a systematic review
    Aramruang, Teerapong
    Malhotra, Akshita
    Numthavaj, Pawin
    Looareesuwan, Panu
    Anothaisintawee, Thunyarat
    Dejthevaporn, Charungthai
    Sirirutbunkajorn, Nat
    Attia, John
    Thakkinstian, Ammarin
    JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN, 2024, 25 (01) : 165
  • [44] Risk prediction models for symptomatic patients with bladder and kidney cancer: a systematic review
    Harrison, Hannah
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Li, Lanxin
    Roberts, Lydia
    Lin, Zhiyuan
    Thompson, Rachel E.
    Rossi, Sabrina H.
    Stewart, Grant D.
    Walter, Fiona M.
    Griffin, Simon
    Zhou, Yin
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2022, 72 (714) : E11 - E18
  • [45] Machine Learning-Based Short-Term Mortality Prediction Models for Patients With Cancer Using Electronic Health Record Data: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Lu, Sheng-Chieh
    Xu, Cai
    Nguyen, Chandler H.
    Geng, Yimin
    Pfob, Andre
    Sidey-Gibbons, Chris
    JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2022, 10 (03)
  • [46] Systematic Review of Clinical Prediction Models for the Risk of Emergency Caesarean Births
    Hunt, Alexandra
    Bonnett, Laura
    Heron, Jon
    Lawton, Michael
    Clayton, Gemma
    Smith, Gordon
    Norman, Jane
    Kenny, Louise
    Lawlor, Deborah
    Merriel, Abi
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2025, 132 (03) : 231 - 240
  • [47] Risk prediction models for mortality and readmission in patients with acute heart failure: A protocol for systematic review, critical appraisal, and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Xuecheng
    Zhou, Kehua
    You, Liangzhen
    Zhang, Jingjing
    Chen, Ying
    Dai, Hengheng
    Wan, Siqi
    Guan, Zhiyue
    Hu, Mingzhi
    Kang, Jing
    Liu, Yan
    Shang, Hongcai
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (07):
  • [48] Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models
    Navarro, Constanza L. Andaur
    Damen, Johanna A. A.
    van Smeden, Maarten
    Takada, Toshihiko
    Nijman, Steven W. J.
    Dhiman, Paula
    Ma, Jie
    Collins, Gary S.
    Bajpai, Ram
    Riley, Richard D.
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Hooft, Lotty
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 154 : 8 - 22
  • [49] Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models Extension: Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool Extension to Assess Racial and Ethnic Equity-Related Risk of Bias for Clinical Prediction Models
    Siddique, Shazia M.
    Evans, Corinne V.
    Harhay, Michael
    Johnson, Eric S.
    Aysola, Jaya
    Weissman, Gary E.
    Mull, Nikhil K.
    Flores, Emilia
    Schmidt, Harald
    Tipton, Kelley
    Leas, Brian
    Lin, Jennifer S.
    HEALTH EQUITY, 2023, 7 (01) : 773 - 781
  • [50] Sample size requirements are not being considered in studies developing prediction models for binary outcomes: a systematic review
    Dhiman, Paula
    Ma, Jie
    Qi, Cathy
    Bullock, Garrett
    Sergeant, Jamie C.
    Riley, Richard D.
    Collins, Gary S.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2023, 23 (01)