Prognostic models in multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges in clinical integration
-
Published:2024-09-05
Issue:1
Volume:6
Page:
-
ISSN:2524-3489
-
Container-title:Neurological Research and Practice
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Neurol. Res. Pract.
Author:
Havla JoachimORCID, Reeve KellyORCID, On Begum IrmakORCID, Mansmann UlrichORCID, Held UlrikeORCID
Abstract
AbstractAs a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system, multiple sclerosis (MS) is of great individual health and socio-economic significance. To date, there is no prognostic model that is used in routine clinical care to predict the very heterogeneous course of the disease. Despite several research groups working on different prognostic models using traditional statistics, machine learning and/or artificial intelligence approaches, the use of published models in clinical decision making is limited because of poor model performance, lack of transferability and/or lack of validated models. To provide a systematic overview, we conducted a “Cochrane review” that assessed 75 published prediction models using relevant checklists (CHARMS, PROBAST, TRIPOD). We have summarized the relevant points from this analysis here so that the use of prognostic models for therapy decisions in clinical routine can be successful in the future.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference9 articles.
1. Jakimovski, D., Bittner, S., Zivadinov, R., Morrow, S. A., Benedict, R. H., Zipp, F., & Weinstock-Guttman, B. (2024). Multiple sclerosis. Lancet, 403(10422), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01473-3. 2. Bayas, A., Berthele, A., Hemmer, B., Warnke, C., & Wildemann, B. (2021). Controversy on the treatment of multiple sclerosis and related disorders: Positional statement of the expert panel in charge of the 2021 DGN Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum diseases and MOG-IgG-associated disorders. Neurol Res Pract, 3(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-021-00139-8. 3. Reeve, K., On, B. I., Havla, J., Burns, J., Gosteli-Peter, M. A., Alabsawi, A., Alayash, Z., Gotschi, A., Seibold, H., Mansmann, U., & Held, U. (2023). Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 9(9), CD013606. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013606.pub2. 4. Debray, T. P., Damen, J. A., Snell, K. I., Ensor, J., Hooft, L., Reitsma, J. B., Riley, R. D., & Moons, K. G. (2017). A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance. Bmj, 356, i6460. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6460. 5. Van Calster, B., Steyerberg, E. W., Wynants, L., & van Smeden, M. (2023). There is no such thing as a validated prediction model. Bmc Medicine, 21(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02779-w.
|
|