![]() This study will focus on the first two categories: fundamental prognosis research to describe and explain outcomes in patients with a given disease or condition and research on prognostic factors associated with outcomes. Stratified medicine research (to identify factors that predict patient treatment response, commonly referred to as predictive factors). Prognostic model research (to explore the use of combinations of prognostic factors to predict the risk of future clinical outcomes in individual patients). Prognostic factor research (to identify factors associated with subsequent clinical outcomes in patients with a particular disease or health condition). The prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) group suggests that prognosis research can be generally classified into four categories:įundamental prognosis research (to describe and explain future outcomes in relation to current diagnostic and treatment practices). The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of SRs of prognostic studies published over the last decade in five high-impact journals. It also has an important role in helping patients to make healthcare-related decisions and planning their lives based on their preferences and reliable evidence. It can help to extend or revise definitions of disease, while identifying unanticipated benefits or harms of healthcare interventions and the need for new interventions to improve patient outcomes. As such, prognosis research can provide important information to support clinical decision-making, the definition of risk groups, and more accurate prediction of disease outcomes. Its aim is to understand and improve outcomes in people with a specific disease or health condition and to provide evidence for improving healthcare and public health policy. New reporting guidelines and risk of bias tools for prognosis studies are needed to improve the quality of future research in this field.īroadly speaking, prognosis research focuses on the description and prediction of future outcomes in people with a given baseline health state. ![]() However, the quality is suboptimal when assessed with the generic reporting guidelines for observational studies. This study shows that there is a growing number of SRs of prognosis studies. However, several items were not consistently well reported by investigators. MOOSE and PRISMA mean summary scores consistently increased over time for all journals, indicating that the quality of reporting in these SRs has steadily improved. Likewise, the proportion of prognosis SRs to all SRs increased from 10.3% in 2000 to 17.7% in 2012. The proportion of all SRs to published articles increased from 0.86% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2012. Of these, 198 were SRs of prognosis studies. Over the 13-year period, 1065 SRs were published. The quality of the SRs was rated based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA checklists. ![]() We excluded studies of clinical prediction guides or implementation studies. We conducted a systematic review in five high-impact clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, JAMA, and Stroke) to identify SRs of prognosis studies focused on fundamental prognosis research and prognostic factor research published between 20. This study aimed to investigate trends in the volume and quality of SRs of prognostic studies in the literature. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result in difficulties when performing the analyses. Prognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |