Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40599890›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

Implementation and Updating of Clinical Prediction Models: A Systematic Review.

Alexander Saelmans, Tom Seinen, Victor Pera, Aniek F Markus, Egill Fridgeirsson, Luis H John, Lieke Schiphof-Godart, Peter Rijnbeek, Jenna Reps, Ross Williams

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alexander SaelmansDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Tom SeinenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Victor PeraDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Aniek F MarkusDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Egill FridgeirssonDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Luis H JohnDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Lieke Schiphof-GodartDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Peter RijnbeekDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jenna RepsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ross WilliamsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To summarize the implementation approaches and updating methods of clinically implemented models and consecutively advise researchers on the implementation and updating. Patients and Methods: We included studies describing the implementation of prognostic binary prediction models in a clinical setting. We retrieved articles from Embase, Medline, and Web of Science from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2024. We performed data extraction, based on Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment guidelines, and summarized. Results: The search yielded 1872 articles. Following screening, 37 articles, describing 56 prediction models, were eligible for inclusion. The overall risk of bias was high in 86% of publications. In model development and internal validation, 32% of the models was assessed for calibration. External validation was performed for 27% of the models. Most models were implemented into the hospital information system (63%), followed by a web application (32%) and a patient decision aid tool (5%). Moreover, 13% of models have been updated following implementation. Conclusion: Impact assessments generally showed successful model implementation and the ability to improve patient care, despite not fully adhering to prediction modeling best practice. Both impact assessment and updating could play a key role in identifying and lowering bias in models.

Identifiers

PMID40599890
PMCPMC12212251

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.