Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review
Alan J. Meehan, Stephanie J. Lewis, Seena Fazel, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Daniel Stahl, Andrea Danese
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 2700-2708 |
Number of pages | 9 |
Journal | Molecular Psychiatry |
Volume | 27 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 1 Apr 2022 |
DOIs | |
Accepted/In press | 14 Mar 2022 |
E-pub ahead of print | 1 Apr 2022 |
Published | Jun 2022 |
Additional links |
Meehan_MolPsy_Accepted_220314.docx, 8.57 MB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Uploaded date:07 Mar 2022
Version:Accepted author manuscript
Clinical prediction models_MEEHAN_Publishedonline1April2022_GOLD VoR (CC BY)
Clinical_prediction_models_MEEHAN_Publishedonline1April2022_GOLD_VoR_CC_BY_.pdf, 2 MB, application/pdf
Uploaded date:05 Apr 2022
Version:Final published version
Licence:CC BY
Meehan_et_al_2022_MolPsych.pdf, 2 MB, application/pdf
Uploaded date:04 Apr 2022
Licence:CC BY
Recent years have seen the rapid proliferation of clinical prediction models aiming to support risk stratification and individualized care within psychiatry. Despite growing interest, attempts to synthesize current evidence in the nascent field of precision psychiatry have remained scarce. This systematic review therefore sought to summarize progress towards clinical implementation of prediction modeling for psychiatric outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and PsychINFO databases from inception to September 30, 2020, for English-language articles that developed and/or validated multivariable models to predict (at an individual level) onset, course, or treatment response for non-organic psychiatric disorders (PROSPERO: CRD42020216530). Individual prediction models were evaluated based on three key criteria: (i) mitigation of bias and overfitting; (ii) generalizability, and (iii) clinical utility. The Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to formally appraise each study’s risk of bias. 228 studies detailing 308 prediction models were ultimately eligible for inclusion. 94.5% of developed prediction models were deemed to be at high risk of bias, largely due to inadequate or inappropriate analytic decisions. Insufficient internal validation efforts (within the development sample) were also observed, while only one-fifth of models underwent external validation in an independent sample. Finally, our search identified just one published model whose potential utility in clinical practice was formally assessed. Our findings illustrated significant growth in precision psychiatry with promising progress towards real-world application. Nevertheless, these efforts have been inhibited by a preponderance of bias and overfitting, while the generalizability and clinical utility of many published models has yet to be formally established. Through improved methodological rigor during initial development, robust evaluations of reproducibility via independent validation, and evidence-based implementation frameworks, future research has the potential to generate risk prediction tools capable of enhancing clinical decision-making in psychiatric care.
King's College London - Homepage
© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454