TY - JOUR
T1 - Uniformity in measuring adherence to reporting guidelines
T2 - The example of TRIPOD for assessing completeness of reporting of prediction model studies
AU - Heus, Pauline
AU - Damen, Johanna A.A.G.
AU - Pajouheshnia, Romin
AU - Scholten, Rob J.P.M.
AU - Reitsma, Johannes B.
AU - Collins, Gary S.
AU - Altman, Douglas G.
AU - Moons, Karel G.M.
AU - Hooft, Lotty
N1 - Funding Information:
KGMM received a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (ZONMW 918.10.615 and 91208004).
Funding Information:
funding GSC was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Author(s).
PY - 2019/4/24
Y1 - 2019/4/24
N2 - To promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, a reporting guideline for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, and thereby facilitate comparability of future studies assessing its impact, we transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules. TRIPOD specific challenges encountered were the existence of different types of prediction model studies and possible combinations of these within publications. More general issues included dealing with multiple reporting elements, reference to information in another publication, and non-applicability of items. We recommend our adherence assessment form to be used by anyone (eg, researchers, reviewers, editors) evaluating adherence to TRIPOD, to make these assessments comparable. In general, when developing a form to assess adherence to a reporting guideline, we recommend formulating specific adherence elements (if needed multiple per reporting guideline item) using unambiguous wording and the consideration of issues of applicability in advance.
AB - To promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, a reporting guideline for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, and thereby facilitate comparability of future studies assessing its impact, we transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules. TRIPOD specific challenges encountered were the existence of different types of prediction model studies and possible combinations of these within publications. More general issues included dealing with multiple reporting elements, reference to information in another publication, and non-applicability of items. We recommend our adherence assessment form to be used by anyone (eg, researchers, reviewers, editors) evaluating adherence to TRIPOD, to make these assessments comparable. In general, when developing a form to assess adherence to a reporting guideline, we recommend formulating specific adherence elements (if needed multiple per reporting guideline item) using unambiguous wording and the consideration of issues of applicability in advance.
KW - adherence
KW - prediction model
KW - reporting guideline
KW - risk score
KW - tripod
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065258314&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025611
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025611
M3 - Article
C2 - 31023756
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 9
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 4
M1 - e025611
ER -