Prediction Rules Must Be Developed According to Methodological Guidelines
Authors: Kristel J.M. Janssen
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2010)

Letters16 February 2010Prediction Rules Must Be Developed According to Methodological GuidelinesKristel J.M. Janssen, PhD, Karel G.M. Moons, PhD, and Frank E. Harrell Jr., PhDKristel J.M. Janssen, PhDFrom University of Utrecht, 3508 Utrecht, the Netherlands; and Vanderbilt University Medical School, Nashville, TN 37232.Search for more papers by this author, Karel G.M. Moons, PhDFrom University of Utrecht, 3508 Utrecht, the Netherlands; and Vanderbilt University Medical School, Nashville, TN 37232.Search for more papers by this author, and Frank E. Harrell Jr., PhDFrom University of Utrecht, 3508 Utrecht, the Netherlands; and Vanderbilt University Medical School, Nashville, TN 37232.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-4-201002160-00014 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:We read with interest the article by Chan and colleagues (1). They described development of a prediction rule that could be used for pretest probability assessment in pregnant women with suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Prediction rules are valuable tools in daily clinical practice because they provide absolute risks for individual patients, and these risks can be used to determine treatment choices or further diagnostic work-up. However, before a prediction rule can be used safely in daily clinical practice, the methodological soundness of the development steps needs to be assured. Chan and colleagues made some methodological choices ...References1. Chan WS, Lee A, Spencer FA, Crowther M, Rodger M, Ramsay T, et al. Predicting deep venous thrombosis in pregnancy: out in “LEFt” field? Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:85-92. [PMID: 19620161] LinkGoogle Scholar2. Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation. 2007;115:928-35. [PMID: 17309939] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Cook NR. Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve. Clin Chem. 2008;54:17-23. [PMID: 18024533] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361-87. [PMID: 8668867] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD. Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:935-42. [PMID: 10513756] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Harrell FE, Habbema JD. Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. Stat Med. 2000;19:1059-79. [PMID: 10790680] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Little RJ, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken, NJ: J Wiley; 1987. Google Scholar8. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: J Wiley; 1987. Google Scholar9. Toll DB, Janssen KJ, Vergouwe Y, Moons KG. Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1085-94. [PMID: 19208371] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Vanderbilt University. Statistical Problems to Document and Avoid. Accessed at biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/ManuscriptChecklist on 6 January 2010. Google Scholar11. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr. Statistical models for prognostication. In: Interactive Textbook on Clinical Symptom Research. Accessed at symptomresearch.nih.gov/chapter_8 on 6 January 2010. Google Scholar12. Harrell FE. Regression Modelling Strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001. Google Scholar13. Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. New York: Springer; 2009. Google Scholar14. Annals of Internal Medicine. Information for authors. Accessed at www.annals.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml on 8 January 2010. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Kristel J.M. Janssen, PhD; Karel G.M. Moons, PhD; Frank E. HarrellJr., PhDAffiliations: From University of Utrecht, 3508 Utrecht, the Netherlands; and Vanderbilt University Medical School, Nashville, TN 37232.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoPredicting Deep Venous Thrombosis in Pregnancy: Out in “LEFt” Field? Wee-Shian Chan , Agnes Lee , Frederick A. Spencer , Mark Crowther , Marc Rodger , Tim Ramsay , and Jeffrey S. Ginsberg Prediction Rules Must Be Developed According to Methodological Guidelines Wee-Shian Chan , Tim Ramsay , and Jeffrey S. Ginsberg Metrics Cited byArtificial Intelligence in CardiologyThe Cape Town Clinical Decision Rule for Streptococcal Pharyngitis in ChildrenDerivation and Validation of the Denver Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Risk Score for Targeted HIV Screening 16 February 2010Volume 152, Issue 4Page: 263KeywordsConflicts of interestDeep vein thrombosisLikelihood ratioPregnancy ePublished: 16 February 2010 Issue Published: 16 February 2010 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...