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
  • [21] Prediction models for recurrence and bleeding in patients with venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and critical appraisal
    de Winter, Maria A.
    van Es, Nick
    Buller, Harry R.
    Visseren, Frank L. J.
    Nijkeuter, Mathilde
    THROMBOSIS RESEARCH, 2021, 199 : 85 - 96
  • [22] Prediction models for postoperative delirium after cardiac surgery: Systematic review and critical appraisal
    Cai, Shining
    Li, Jingjing
    Gao, Jian
    Pan, Wenyan
    Zhang, Yuxia
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2022, 136
  • [23] Prediction models for acute kidney injury following liver transplantation: A systematic review and critical appraisal
    Huang, Jingying
    Chen, Jiaojiao
    Yang, Jin
    Han, Mengbo
    Xue, Zihao
    Wang, Yina
    Xu, Miaomiao
    Qi, Haiou
    Wang, Yuting
    INTENSIVE AND CRITICAL CARE NURSING, 2025, 86
  • [24] Prediction Models for Return of Spontaneous Circulation in Patients with Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Cheng, Pengfei
    Yang, Pengyu
    Zhang, Hua
    Wang, Haizhen
    EMERGENCY MEDICINE INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 2023
  • [25] Prediction Models for Postoperative Pneumonia in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    He, Zhiqiang
    Zhong, Gaoting
    Han, Wenjin
    Han, Mengyu
    Wu, Wenbin
    Zhou, Xiaoling
    Yang, Yaru
    An, Yu
    Li, Jin
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2025,
  • [26] CLINICAL PREDICTION MODELS FOR METHOTREXATE OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND CRITICAL APPRAISAL
    Gehringer, C.
    Martin, G.
    Hyrich, K.
    Verstappen, S.
    Sergeant, J.
    ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 2022, 81 : 1823 - 1824
  • [27] Mortality prediction models after radical cystectomy for bladder tumour: A systematic review and critical appraisal
    Sarrio-Sanz, Pau
    Martinez-Cayuelas, Laura
    Lumberas, Blanca
    Sanchez-Caballero, Laura
    Palazon-Bru, Antonio
    Gil-Guillen, Vicente F.
    Gomez-Perez, Luis
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, 2022, 52 (10)
  • [28] Reporting and Methods in Developing Prognostic Prediction Models for Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
    Zhang, Hui
    Shao, Jing
    Chen, Dandan
    Zou, Ping
    Cui, Nianqi
    Tang, Leiwen
    Wang, Dan
    Ye, Zhihong
    DIABETES METABOLIC SYNDROME AND OBESITY, 2020, 13 : 4981 - 4992
  • [29] 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
  • [30] 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