In Journal of clinical epidemiology ; h5-index 60.0
BACKGROUND : In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for individualised risk prediction.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING : We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 01/01/2019 and 05/09/2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices.
RESULTS : We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion or conclusion.
CONCLUSION : The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.
Dhiman Paula, Ma Jie, Andaur Navarro Constanza L, Speich Benjamin, Bullock Garrett, Damen Johanna Aa, Hooft Lotty, Kirtley Shona, Riley Richard D, Van Calster Ben, Moons Karel Gm, Collins Gary S
2023-Mar-17
machine learning, prediction model, spin
