Objectives: To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model regardless of the modeling technique. Study Design and Setting: We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) premeeting literature review to generate items to be included; (2) a series of structured meetings to provide comments discussed and exchanged viewpoints on items to be included with a panel of experienced researchers; and (3) postmeeting review on final list of items and examples to be included. Through this iterative consensus process, a framework was derived after all panel's researchers agreed. Results: This consensus process involved a panel of eight researchers and resulted in SPIN-Prediction Models which consists of two categories of spin (misleading interpretation and misleading transportability), and within these categories, two forms of spin (spin practices and facilitators of spin). We provide criteria and examples. Conclusion: We proposed this guidance aiming to facilitate not only the accurate reporting but also an accurate interpretation and extrapolation of clinical prediction models which will likely improve the reporting quality of subsequent research, as well as reduce research waste.

Original languageEnglish
Article number111364
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Early online date15 Apr 2024
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2024


  • Development
  • Diagnosis
  • Misinterpretation
  • Misrepresentation
  • Overextrapolation
  • Overinterpretation
  • Prognosis
  • Validation


Dive into the research topics of 'Spin-pm: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this