Prognostic models for intracerebral hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis

Gregório, Tiago; Pipa, Sara; Cavaleiro, Pedro; Atanásio, Gabriel; Albuquerque, Inês; Chaves, Paulo Castro; Azevedo, Luís

doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0613-8

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Table 2 summary description of the tool development process and risk of bias

From: Prognostic models for intracerebral hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis

Author	Source of data	Sampling reported	Nr patients	Nr events	Nr variable	EPV	Loss to follow-up:	Missing data reported?	Blinding reported?	Modelling method	Internal validation	Calibration
Alsina [24]	Cohort	Not reported	100	38	3	12.7	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Berwaerts [41]	Cohort	Consecutive	42	18	2	9	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Bhatia [65]	Cohort	Consecutive	214	70	4	17.5	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Broderick [44]	Cohort	Consecutive	162	83	2	19.8	0.6%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Broderick´ [44]	Cohort	Consecutive	162	83	4	39.5	0.6%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Celik [68]	Cohort	Not reported	257	119	12	9.9	0%	No	No	ANN	Cross-validation	Not reported
Cerillo [21]	Cohort	Not reported	88	34	7	4.9	0%	No	No	Univariate analysis	No	Not reported
Chen [45]	Cohort	Consecutive	285	61	4	15.3	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Chiu [61]	Cohort	Not reported	106	16	2	8	0%	Yes	No	CART + SVM	Split sample	Not reported
Chuang [63]	Cohort	Not reported	293	40	5	8	0%	No	No	Logistic	Cross-validation	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Edwards [28]	Cohort	Consecutive	81	21	15	1.4	0%	No	No	ANN	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Edwards´ [28]	Cohort	Consecutive	81	21	4	5.3	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Fogelholm [31]	Cohort	Consecutive	282	120	6	20	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Frithz [12]	Cohort	Not reported	91	79	2	6	0%	Yes	No	CART	No	Not reported
Galbois [38]	Cohort	Consecutive	72	35	2	17.5	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Cross-validation	Not reported
Galbois´ [38]	Cohort	Consecutive	72	35	2	17.5	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Cross-validation	Not reported
Grellier [66]	Cohort	Not reported	300	Not reported	9	n/a	0%	No	No	Unclear	No	Not reported
Hallevi [34]	Cohort	Consecutive	174	Not reported	2	n/a	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Hemphill [48]	Cohort	Consecutive	152	68	5	13.6	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Ho [64]	Registry	Consecutive	805	164	6	27.3	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Le Cessie and Howelingen + plots
Huang [40]	Cohort	Consecutive	107	72	3	11.7	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Li [50]	Cohort	Consecutive	227	49	4	12.3	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Li´ [49]	Cohort	Consecutive	716	140	4	35	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Lukic [33]	Cohort	Consecutive	411	256	5	31	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Lukic´ [26]	Case-Control	Not reported	200	100	8	12.5	0%	Yes	No	ANN	Split Sample	Not reported
Lukic´´ [26]	Case-Control	Not reported	200	100	2	50	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Masé [27]	Cohort	Consecutive	138	38	3	12.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Parry-Jones [53]	Cohort	Consecutive	1175	483	4	120.8	1.1%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Peng [54]	Cohort	Not reported	423	62	20	3.1	0%	Yes	No	Random Forrest	Cross-validation	Not reported
Peng´ [54]	Cohort	Not reported	423	62	10	6.2	0%	Yes	No	ANN	Cross-validation	Not reported
Peng´´ [54]	Cohort	Not reported	423	62	10	12.4	0%	Yes	No	SVM	Cross-validation	Not reported
Peng´´´ [54]	Cohort	Not reported	423	62	5	12.4	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Cross-validation	Not reported
Romano [56]	Cohort	Consecutive	154	63	3	21	0.6%	Yes	No	Logistic	Split sample	Not reported
Ruiz-Sandoval [58]	Cohort	Consecutive	378	174	5	34.8	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Bootstrap	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Safatli [60]	Cohort	Consecutive	342	86	3	28.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Szepesi [32]	Cohort	Not reported	125	59	6	9.8	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Tabak [59]	Administrative data	Consecutive	29,975	6765	17	397.9	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Bootstrap	Calibration plot
Takahashi [67]	Cohort	Not reported	347	70	3	23.3	0%	No	No	CART	Cross-validation	Not reported
Takahashi´ [67]	Cohort	Not reported	347	70	4	17.5	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Tshikwela [36]	Cohort	Not reported	185	68	3	22.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Tshikwela´ [36]	Cohort	Not reported	185	68	3	22.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Tuhrim [23]	Cohort	Not reported	129	27	5	5.4	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Tuhrim´ [30]	Registry	Not reported	187	54	5	10.8	2.1%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Tuhrim´´ [29]	Registry	Not reported	73	25	3	8.3	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Ziai [35]	Cohort	Consecutive	170	87	4	20.8	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Cross-validation	Not reported
Zis [39]	Cohort	Consecutive	191	61	5	12.2	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Appelboom [10]	Cohort	Consecutive	84	18	5	3.6	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Logistic (Update)	No	Not reported
Creutzfeld [47]	Cohort	Consecutive	424	187	7	26.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Flemming [18]	Cohort	Consecutive	81	24	2	12	0%	Yes	No	Decision Tree	No	Not reported
Flemming´ [18]	Cohort	Consecutive	81	51	3	10	0%	Yes	No	Decision Tree	No	Not reported
Hallevy [25]	Cohort	Consecutive	184	70	6	11.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Ji [51]	Registry	Consecutive	1953	912	7	130.3	12.6%	Yes	Yes	Logistic	Split sample	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Lisk [22]	Cohort	Consecutive	75	35	4	8.8	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Lisk´ [22]	Cohort	Consecutive	42	9	3	3	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Neidert [11]	Cohort	Consecutive	67	28	8	3.5	0%	No	No	Univariate analysis	No	Not reported
Misra [15]	Cohort	Not reported	38	Not reported	4	n/a	Unclear	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Mittal [52]	Cohort	Consecutive	92	62	5	6	0%	No	Yes	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Portenoy [20]	Cohort	Consecutive	112	41	3	13.7	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Hosmer-Lemeshow
Poungvarin [55]	Cohort	Consecutive	995	402	4	100.5	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Rost [57]	Cohort	Consecutive	418	121	5	24.2	13.4%	Yes	No	Logistic	Split sample	Not reported
Shah [17]	Cohort	Not reported	53	29	2	12	0%	No	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Shaya [19]	Cohort	Consecutive	50	n/a	3	n/a	0%	No	No	Ordered logistic	No	Not reported
Weimar [42]	RCTs	Not reported	564	171	3	57	0%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Calibration plot
Weimar´ [37]	Cohort	Consecutive	207	78	2	39	20.4%	Yes	Yes	Logistic	No	Not reported
Weimar´´ [43]	Registry	Consecutive	340	89	3	29.7	27%	Yes	Yes	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Cheung [46]	Cohort	Consecutive	141	31^a	5	6.2^a	0.7%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Cheung [46]	Cohort	Consecutive	141	49^b	5	9.8^b	0.7%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Cheung´ [46]	Cohort	Consecutive	141	31^a	5	6.2^a	0.7%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Cheung´ [46]	Cohort	Consecutive	141	49^b	5	9.8^b	0.7%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Cho [14]	RCT	Consecutive	226	42^a	3	14^a	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Cho [14]	RCT	Consecutive	226	Unclear^b	3	n/a^b	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	No	Not reported
Godoy [62]	Cohort	Consecutive	153	53^a	5	10.6^a	0%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Godoy [62]	Cohort	Consecutive	153	59^b	5	11.8^b	0%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Godoy´ [62]	Cohort	Consecutive	153	53^a	5	10.6^a	0%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Godoy´ [62]	Cohort	Consecutive	153	59^b	5	11.8^b	0%	Yes	No	Logistic (update)	No	Not reported
Lei [13]	Cohort	Consecutive	170	43^a	4	10.8^a	0%	No	Yes	Logistic	Split sample	Not reported
Lei [13]	Cohort	Consecutive	170	90^b	4	20^b	0%	No	Yes	Logistic	Split sample	Not reported
Stein [16]	Cohort	Consecutive	110	31^a	4	7.8^a	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Split sample	Not reported
Stein [16]	Cohort	Consecutive	110	86^b	4	4.5^b	0%	Yes	No	Logistic	Split sample	Not reported

ANN artificial neural networks, CART classification and regression tree, SVM support vector machine
^aValues relating to mortality
^bValues relating to functional outcome

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com