A brief step-by-step guide on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies

Daniel G Rayner; Ben Kim; Farid Foroutan

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111360

A brief step-by-step guide on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies

J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Apr 9:170:111360. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111360. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Daniel G Rayner¹, Ben Kim², Farid Foroutan³

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: rayned1@mcmaster.ca.
² Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research, Peter Munk Cardiac Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
³ Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research, Peter Munk Cardiac Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PMID: 38604273
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111360

Abstract

Prognostic models provide an avenue to predict the risk of individual patients and support shared-decision making. Many prognostic models are published annually, and systematic reviews provide an avenue to collate the existing evidence behind prognostic models to determine whether a model demonstrates adequate predictive performance and is ready for real-world use. This article provides a brief step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies and how these reviews differ from systematic reviews of therapy and diagnosis.

Keywords: Calibration; Discrimination; Meta-analysis; Prognosis; Prognostic model; Systematic review.