SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models

Constanza L. Andaur Navarro; Johanna AA. Damen; Mona Ghannad; Paula Dhiman; Maarten van Smeden; Johannes B. Reitsma; Gary S. Collins; Richard D. Riley; Karel GM. Moons; Lotty Hooft

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364

SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models

Constanza L. Andaur Navarro^*, Johanna AA. Damen, Mona Ghannad, Paula Dhiman, Maarten van Smeden, Johannes B. Reitsma, Gary S. Collins, Richard D. Riley, Karel GM. Moons, Lotty Hooft

^*Corresponding author for this work

Applied Health Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model, regardless of the modelling technique.

Study Design: We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) pre-meeting 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) post-meeting 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-PM 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 language	English
Article number	111364
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Early online date	15 Apr 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 15 Apr 2024

Bibliographical note

Funding
No specific funding was given to this study. GSC is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and by Cancer Research UK program grant (C49297/A27294). PD is funded by the NIHR Oxford BRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS nor NIHR. None of the funding sources had a role in the design, conduct, analyses, or reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Keywords

diagnosis
prognosis
development
validation
misinterpretation
misrepresentation
overinterpretation
overextrapolation

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY)

Cite this

Andaur Navarro, C. L., Damen, J. AA., Ghannad, M., Dhiman, P., van Smeden, M., Reitsma, J. B., Collins, G. S., Riley, R. D., Moons, K. GM., & Hooft, L. (2024). SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Article 111364. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364

@article{29c0891348ad418aa8e1de973327084a,

title = "SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models",

abstract = "Objectives: To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model, regardless of the modelling technique.Study Design: We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) pre-meeting 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) post-meeting review on final list of items and examples to be included. Through this iterative consensus process, a framework was derived after all panel{\textquoteright}s researchers agreed.Results: This consensus process involved a panel of eight researchers and resulted in SPIN-PM 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.",

keywords = "diagnosis, prognosis, development, validation, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, overinterpretation, overextrapolation",

author = "{Andaur Navarro}, {Constanza L.} and Damen, {Johanna AA.} and Mona Ghannad and Paula Dhiman and {van Smeden}, Maarten and Reitsma, {Johannes B.} and Collins, {Gary S.} and Riley, {Richard D.} and Moons, {Karel GM.} and Lotty Hooft",

note = "Funding No specific funding was given to this study. GSC is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and by Cancer Research UK program grant (C49297/A27294). PD is funded by the NIHR Oxford BRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS nor NIHR. None of the funding sources had a role in the design, conduct, analyses, or reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.",

year = "2024",

month = apr,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364",

language = "English",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SPIN-PM

T2 - A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models

AU - Andaur Navarro, Constanza L.

AU - Damen, Johanna AA.

AU - Ghannad, Mona

AU - Dhiman, Paula

AU - van Smeden, Maarten

AU - Reitsma, Johannes B.

AU - Collins, Gary S.

AU - Riley, Richard D.

AU - Moons, Karel GM.

AU - Hooft, Lotty

N1 - Funding No specific funding was given to this study. GSC is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and by Cancer Research UK program grant (C49297/A27294). PD is funded by the NIHR Oxford BRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS nor NIHR. None of the funding sources had a role in the design, conduct, analyses, or reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

PY - 2024/4/15

Y1 - 2024/4/15

N2 - Objectives: To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model, regardless of the modelling technique.Study Design: We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) pre-meeting 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) post-meeting 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-PM 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.

AB - Objectives: To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model, regardless of the modelling technique.Study Design: We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) pre-meeting 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) post-meeting 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-PM 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.

KW - diagnosis

KW - prognosis

KW - development

KW - validation

KW - misinterpretation

KW - misrepresentation

KW - overinterpretation

KW - overextrapolation

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364

M3 - Article

SN - 0895-4356

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

M1 - 111364

ER -

SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this