Systematic reviews of prognostic studies III: meta-analytical approaches in systematic reviews of prognostic studies

Workshop category: 

  • Statistical methods
Date and Location

Date: 

Monday 17 September 2018 - 11:00 to 12:30

Location: 

Lowther
Contact persons and facilitators

Contact person:

Johanna Damen

Facilitators:

Debray T1, Damen J2, Moons K1, Riley R3
1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Netherlands
2 Cochrane Netherlands, Netherlands
3 Prognosis Methods Group, United Kingdom

Acknowledgements:

Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group 1
1 Cochrane, UK
Target audience

Target audience: 

Reviewers with an interest in meta-analysis of prognostic studies

Level of difficulty: 

Intermediate
Type of workshop

Type of workshop : 

Training
Abstract

Abstract:

Background:
Prediction models are commonly developed and validated for predicting the presence (diagnostic) or future occurrence (prognostic) of a particular outcome. Prediction models have become abundant in the literature. Many models have been validated in numerous different studies/publications. In addition, numerous studies have investigated the (added) value of a prognostic factor/predictor/biomarker to existing predictors. In both situations, aggregating such data is important for making inferences on the predictive performance of a specific model or predictor/marker. Meta-analytical approaches for both situations have recently been developed.

Objectives:
This workshop introduces participants to statistical methods for meta-analysis in systematic reviews of prognosis studies. We address both meta-analysis of the accuracy of a prognostic model and of the (added) predictive value of a prognostic factor. We discuss the opportunities/challenges of the statistical methods and common software packages.

Description:
In this workshop we illustrate these statistical approaches and how to combine - quantitatively - results from published studies on the predictive accuracy of a prognostic model or (added) predictive accuracy of a prognostic factor. We illustrate this with various empirical examples.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

Our workshop will train future authors on conducting reviews of prognostic studies that address patient-relevant clinical questions in prognosis research. It will train them to assess how primary prognostic studies have been conducted, and assess whether they address patient-relevant outcomes. Our workshop aims to encourage review authors to involve patients in the prioritization of patient-relevant outcomes, and give recommendations on how primary prognostic research should involve patients and consumers in future research.