- Karel G M Moons, professor of clinical epidemiology1,
- Douglas G Altman, professor of statistics in medicine2,
- Yvonne Vergouwe, assistant professor of clinical epidemiology1,
- Patrick Royston, senior statistician3
- 1Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
- 2Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6UD
- 3MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London NW1 2DA
- Correspondence to: K G M Moons k.g.m.moons{at}umcutrecht.nl
- Accepted 6 October 2008
Prognostic models are developed to be applied in new patients, who may come from different centres, countries, or times. Hence, new patients are commonly referred to as different from but similar to the patients used to develop the models.1 2 3 4 But what exactly does this mean? When can a new patient population be considered similar (enough) to the development population to justify validation and eventually application of a model? We have already considered the design, development, and validation of prognostic research and models.5 6 7 In the final article of our series, we discuss common limitations to the application and generalisation of prognostic models and what evidence beyond validation is needed before practitioners can confidently apply a model to their patients. These issues also apply to prediction models with a diagnostic outcome (presence of a disease).
Summary points
Prognostic models generalise best to populations that have similar ranges of predictor values to those in the development population
When a prognostic model performs less well in a new population, using the new data to modify the model should first be considered rather than directly developing a new model
Application of prognostic models requires unambiguous definitions of predictors and outcomes and reproducible measurements using methods available in clinical practice
Impact studies quantify the effect of using a prognostic model on physicians’ behaviour, patient outcome, or cost effectiveness of care compared with usual care without the model
Impact studies require different design, outcome, analysis, and reporting from validation studies
Limitations to application
Extrapolation versus validation
Most prediction models are developed in secondary care, and it is common to want to …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012