Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies

Abstract Background Ignoring treatments in prognostic model development or validation can affect the accuracy and transportability of models. We aim to quantify the extent to which the effects of treatment have been addressed in existing prognostic model research and provide recommendations for the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Romin Pajouheshnia, Johanna A. A. G. Damen, Rolf H. H. Groenwold, Karel G. M. Moons, Linda M. Peelen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2017-09-01
Series:Diagnostic and Prognostic Research
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41512-017-0015-0
id doaj-1a583fc431ed4366b6330d7d55907efd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1a583fc431ed4366b6330d7d55907efd2020-11-25T00:22:20ZengBMCDiagnostic and Prognostic Research2397-75232017-09-011111010.1186/s41512-017-0015-0Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studiesRomin Pajouheshnia0Johanna A. A. G. Damen1Rolf H. H. Groenwold2Karel G. M. Moons3Linda M. Peelen4Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center UtrechtJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center UtrechtJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center UtrechtJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center UtrechtJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center UtrechtAbstract Background Ignoring treatments in prognostic model development or validation can affect the accuracy and transportability of models. We aim to quantify the extent to which the effects of treatment have been addressed in existing prognostic model research and provide recommendations for the handling and reporting of treatment use in future studies. Methods We first describe how and when the use of treatments by individuals in a prognostic study can influence the development or validation of a prognostic model. We subsequently conducted a systematic review of the handling and reporting of treatment use in prognostic model studies in cardiovascular medicine. Data on treatment use (e.g. medications, surgeries, lifestyle interventions), the timing of their use, and the handling of such treatment use in the analyses were extracted and summarised. Results Three hundred two articles were included in the review. Treatment use was not mentioned in 91 (30%) articles. One hundred forty-six (48%) reported specific information about treatment use in their studies; 78 (26%) provided information about multiple treatments. Three articles (1%) reported changes in medication use (“treatment drop-in”) during follow-up. Seventy-nine articles (26%) excluded treated individuals from their analysis, 80 articles (26%) modelled treatment as an outcome, and of the 155 articles that developed a model, 86 (55%) modelled treatment use, almost exclusively at baseline, as a predictor. Conclusions The use of treatments has been partly considered by the majority of CVD prognostic model studies. Detailed accounts including, for example, information on treatment drop-in were rare. Where relevant, the use of treatments should be considered in the analysis of prognostic model studies, particularly when a prognostic model is designed to guide the use of certain treatments and these treatments have been used by the study participants. Future prognostic model studies should clearly report the use of treatments by study participants and consider the potential impact of treatment use on the study findings.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41512-017-0015-0
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Romin Pajouheshnia
Johanna A. A. G. Damen
Rolf H. H. Groenwold
Karel G. M. Moons
Linda M. Peelen
spellingShingle Romin Pajouheshnia
Johanna A. A. G. Damen
Rolf H. H. Groenwold
Karel G. M. Moons
Linda M. Peelen
Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
Diagnostic and Prognostic Research
author_facet Romin Pajouheshnia
Johanna A. A. G. Damen
Rolf H. H. Groenwold
Karel G. M. Moons
Linda M. Peelen
author_sort Romin Pajouheshnia
title Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
title_short Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
title_full Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
title_fullStr Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
title_full_unstemmed Treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
title_sort treatment use in prognostic model research: a systematic review of cardiovascular prognostic studies
publisher BMC
series Diagnostic and Prognostic Research
issn 2397-7523
publishDate 2017-09-01
description Abstract Background Ignoring treatments in prognostic model development or validation can affect the accuracy and transportability of models. We aim to quantify the extent to which the effects of treatment have been addressed in existing prognostic model research and provide recommendations for the handling and reporting of treatment use in future studies. Methods We first describe how and when the use of treatments by individuals in a prognostic study can influence the development or validation of a prognostic model. We subsequently conducted a systematic review of the handling and reporting of treatment use in prognostic model studies in cardiovascular medicine. Data on treatment use (e.g. medications, surgeries, lifestyle interventions), the timing of their use, and the handling of such treatment use in the analyses were extracted and summarised. Results Three hundred two articles were included in the review. Treatment use was not mentioned in 91 (30%) articles. One hundred forty-six (48%) reported specific information about treatment use in their studies; 78 (26%) provided information about multiple treatments. Three articles (1%) reported changes in medication use (“treatment drop-in”) during follow-up. Seventy-nine articles (26%) excluded treated individuals from their analysis, 80 articles (26%) modelled treatment as an outcome, and of the 155 articles that developed a model, 86 (55%) modelled treatment use, almost exclusively at baseline, as a predictor. Conclusions The use of treatments has been partly considered by the majority of CVD prognostic model studies. Detailed accounts including, for example, information on treatment drop-in were rare. Where relevant, the use of treatments should be considered in the analysis of prognostic model studies, particularly when a prognostic model is designed to guide the use of certain treatments and these treatments have been used by the study participants. Future prognostic model studies should clearly report the use of treatments by study participants and consider the potential impact of treatment use on the study findings.
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41512-017-0015-0
work_keys_str_mv AT rominpajouheshnia treatmentuseinprognosticmodelresearchasystematicreviewofcardiovascularprognosticstudies
AT johannaaagdamen treatmentuseinprognosticmodelresearchasystematicreviewofcardiovascularprognosticstudies
AT rolfhhgroenwold treatmentuseinprognosticmodelresearchasystematicreviewofcardiovascularprognosticstudies
AT karelgmmoons treatmentuseinprognosticmodelresearchasystematicreviewofcardiovascularprognosticstudies
AT lindampeelen treatmentuseinprognosticmodelresearchasystematicreviewofcardiovascularprognosticstudies
_version_ 1725360349266313216