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
  • [1] Prediction models for prognosis of influenza: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Sun, Yao
    Zhou, Yiwu
    Zhang, Shu
    SIGNA VITAE, 2021, 17 (05) : 18 - 29
  • [2] Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal
    Li, He
    Sun, Dianqin
    Cao, Maomao
    He, Siyi
    Zheng, Yadi
    Yu, Xinyang
    Wu, Zheng
    Lei, Lin
    Peng, Ji
    Li, Jiang
    Li, Ni
    Chen, Wanqing
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (20): : 7265 - 7276
  • [3] Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal
    Wynants, Laure
    Van Calster, Ben
    Collins, Gary S.
    Riley, Richard D.
    Heinze, Georg
    Schuit, Ewoud
    Albu, Elena
    Arshi, Banafsheh
    Bellou, Vanesa
    Bonten, Marc M. J.
    Dahly, Darren L.
    Damen, Johanna A.
    Debray, Thomas P. A.
    de Jong, Valentijn M. T.
    De Vos, Maarten
    Dhiman, Paula
    Ensor, Joie
    Gao, Shan
    Haller, Maria C.
    Harhay, Michael O.
    Henckaerts, Liesbet
    Heus, Pauline
    Hoogland, Jeroen
    Hudda, Mohammed
    Jenniskens, Kevin
    Kammer, Michael
    Kreuzberger, Nina
    Lohmann, Anna
    Levis, Brooke
    Luijken, Kim
    Ma, Jie
    Martin, Glen P.
    McLernon, David J.
    Andaur Navarro, Constanza L.
    Reitsma, Johannes B.
    Sergeant, Jamie C.
    Shi, Chunhu
    Skoetz, Nicole
    Smits, Luc J. M.
    Snell, Kym I. E.
    Sperrin, Matthew
    Spijker, Rene
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Takada, Toshihiko
    Tzoulaki, Ioanna
    van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
    van Bussel, Bas C. T.
    van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
    Reeve, Kelly
    van Royen, Florien S.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 369
  • [4] Prediction models for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Qiu Lin
    Tong Yang
    Jin Yongmei
    Ye Mao Die
    Systematic Reviews, 11
  • [5] Prediction models for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Qiu Lin
    Tong Yang
    Jin Yongmei
    Ye Mao Die
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [6] Prediction Models for the Development of COPD: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Zhou, Q. X.
    Shi, S. Y.
    Sun, F.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 201
  • [7] Prediction Models for Exacerbations of COPD: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Shuyuan, S.
    Qingxin, Z.
    Feng, S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 201
  • [8] Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Havsed, Kristian
    Petersson, Gunnel Hansel
    Isberg, Per-Erik
    Pigg, Maria
    Svensater, Gunnel
    Foresight Res Consortium
    Rohlin, Madeleine
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [9] Prediction Models for Osteoporotic Fractures Risk: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Sun, Xuemei
    Chen, Yancong
    Gao, Yinyan
    Zhang, Zixuan
    Qin, Lang
    Song, Jinlu
    Wang, Huan
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    AGING AND DISEASE, 2022, 13 (04): : 1215 - 1238
  • [10] Multivariable prediction models of caries increment: a systematic review and critical appraisal
    Kristian Havsed
    Gunnel Hänsel Petersson
    Per-Erik Isberg
    Maria Pigg
    Gunnel Svensäter
    Madeleine Rohlin
    Systematic Reviews, 12