Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models

Background: Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction studies, serve different purposes, which should be reflected in how the results are summarized in reviews. Therefore we set out to investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies. Methods: Outcome prediction reviews published in MEDLINE between October 2005 and March 2011 were eligible and 127 Systematic reviews with the aim to summarize outcome prediction studies written in English were identified for inclusion. Characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included were independently assessed by 2 review authors, using standardized forms. Results: After consensus meetings a total of 50 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included. The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported univariable or multivariable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in 10 reviews, and 49 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses types a range of different methods was used to present the results of the outcome prediction studies. Conclusions: Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results but quantitative analysis is rarely performed. The description of its objectives and of the primary studies is suboptimal and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. The poor reporting and the wide variety of data synthesis strategies are prone to influence the conclusions of outcome prediction reviews. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies. (aut.ref.

Prognostic factors in localized extremity osteosarcoma: A systematic review

Aim: Finding reliable prognostic factors for osteosarcoma remains problematic. A systematic review [Davis AM, Bell RS, Goodwin PJ. Prognostic factors in osteosarcoma: a critical review. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1994; 12(2): 423-431.] showed chemotherapy response as only independent factor. We tried to identify evidence-based prognostic factors in the literature since 1992 and to establish pooled relative risks of factors. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase search (1992-August 2006). Two reviewers independently selected papers addressing prognostic factors in localized extremity osteosarcoma, which were studied for methodological quality, and valuable new factors. An attempt was made to pool results. Results: Of 1777 "hits", 93 papers were studied in depth. Several "new" prognostic factors were found. Only 7 papers were of sufficient quality to analyze. Chemotherapy response, tumor size and site, alkaline phosphatase level and p-glycoprotein expression seemed to be independent factors. Some new factors looked promising. Conclusions: Although the literature is abundant, it is disappointing that only few papers are of sufficient quality to allow hard conclusions. Because of heterogeneity of the studies pooling results is hardly possible. There is a need for standardization of studies and reports. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved