Skip to main content

Table 1 Overall completeness of reporting of obstetrical prediction model studies (median and interquartile range)

From: The reporting of prognostic prediction models for obstetric care was poor: a cross-sectional survey of 10-year publications

Characteristics

N

Adherence (%)a

P value

Overall

121

46.4 (39.3, 54.5)

Type of prediction study

 Model development (type “D”)

93

44.8 (39.3, 51.8)

< 0.001§

 External validation (type “V”)

10

45.7 (35.6, 65.7)

 

 Incremental value (type “IV”)

6

49.2 (45.9, 53.3)

 

 Development and external validation (type “D + V”)

12

68.1 (53.4, 78.2)

 

Publication year

 2011–2015

44

43.9 (39.3, 55.9)

0.103*

 2016–2020

77

46.7 (37.3, 55.9)

 

Involvement of any epidemiologist or statistician

 No

97

46.4 (39.3, 53.5)

0.630*

 Yes

24

45.2 (39.5, 58.7)

 

Number of study sites

 Monocenter

54

44.4 (39.3, 53.2)

0.277*

 Multicenter

67

46.7 (39.3, 55.2)

 

Prospective design

 No

46

46.4 (40.4, 56.8)

0.665*

 Yes

75

46.4 (37.3, 53.1)

 
  1. Note: § Kruskal–Wallis test;
  2. * Mann–Whitney test
  3. aThe overall adherence by study was calculated by dividing the sum of the adhered items by the total number of applicable items for related study (%)