Journal
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages 2768-2786Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0962280218785504
Keywords
Meta-analysis; aggregate data; evidence synthesis; systematic review; prognosis; validation; prediction; discrimination; calibration
Categories
Funding
- Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development [91617050]
- Cochrane Methods Innovation Funds Round 2 [MTH001F]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
It is widely recommended that any developed-diagnostic or prognostic-prediction model is externally validated in terms of its predictive performance measured by calibration and discrimination. When multiple validations have been performed, a systematic review followed by a formal meta-analysis helps to summarize overall performance across multiple settings, and reveals under which circumstances the model performs suboptimal (alternative poorer) and may need adjustment. We discuss how to undertake meta-analysis of the performance of prediction models with either a binary or a time-to-event outcome. We address how to deal with incomplete availability of study-specific results (performance estimates and their precision), and how to produce summary estimates of the c-statistic, the observed:expected ratio and the calibration slope. Furthermore, we discuss the implementation of frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis methods, and propose novel empirically-based prior distributions to improve estimation of between-study heterogeneity in small samples. Finally, we illustrate all methods using two examples: meta-analysis of the predictive performance of EuroSCORE II and of the Framingham Risk Score. All examples and meta-analysis models have been implemented in our newly developed R package metamisc.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available