Assessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors

By J. Hayden, D. A. van der Windt, Jennifer L Cartwright, P. Côté, C. Bombardier. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2013

2,869 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Pharmacology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6089fea0ac1eb61fa16600da4485dd8120532275

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Pharmacology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Childhood obesity as a predictor of morbidity in adulthood: a systematic review and meta‐analysis (2016, methodology): “list, a tool designed for systematic reviews of prognostic studies (29,30).”
Predicting adult obesity from childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis (2016, methodology): “The quality of included studies was assessed based on a modified version of the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) checklist, a tool designed for systematic reviews of prognostic studies (14,15).”
Insomnia as a predictor of mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019, methodology): “Assessment of risk of bias 22 The QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies) Risk of Bi as Assessment Instrument for Prognostic 23 Factor Studies was used as a tool for the assessmen t of risk of bias in the individual studies 24 [23].”
What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018, methodology): “well-defined review question however the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool [34] and the Checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies (CHARMS”
Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “Risk of bias assessment Validity of included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers (J-LE and DD) using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool as described previously [6].”
PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2019, methodology): “(25, 26) The QUIPS tool has been developed to assess the risk of bias in predictor finding (prognostic factor) studies.(28) The methodological quality of studies investigating the impact of a prediction model using a comparative randomised design can be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bi”
Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review (2015, methodology): “For the updated review, and being aware of more recent literature on assessing the quality of prognostic studies, we decided to keep S94 www.bjcancer.com | DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.48 the original questions, as they were in line with the new Quality in Prognosis Studies tool (Hayden et al, 2006, 2013).”
Interleukin‐6 in Covid‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2020, methodology): “Risk of bias was assessed via the QUIPS tool in cohort studies assessing inflammatory response in Covid-19.(26,27) Four studies were determined to be at high risk of bias,(33,35,37,38) five moderate,(29,31,32,34,36) and one low (Figure S1)(30); this was mostly driven by lack of control for confoundi”
Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist (2014, methodology): “Existing guidance for synthesizing studies of prognostic factors [25,26] does not address studies of multivariable prediction models.”
Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2016, positive): “13,14,22,23 Finally, we used identical methods for all 14 systematic reviews, with every step being checked by a second author to ensure accuracy, and we followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.”