Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment for the included model development/validation studies

From: Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review

Model (author offirst version) Stage of development covered I. Participantselectiona II. Predictorsa III. Outcomea IV. Samplesize andparticipantflowa V. Analysisa
RAT (Hamilton) series of models for colorectal and meta-staticcancer [33, 36, 43]}
  Apparent performance ? ? x
  External validation (colorectal only) [27] ? ?
QCancer (Hippisley-Cox) series of models for colorectal andmultiple sites for females and males [22, 23, 37, 38]
  Internal validation
  External validation (colorectal only) [23]
Bristol-Birmingham (Marshall) [29] model for colorectal cancer
  External validation ? ?
  External validation (Elias and colleagues,2017) [27] ? ?
Netherlands’ (Fitjen 1995 [28]) model for colorectal cancer
  Apparent performance x ? x
  External validation (Hodder and colleagues,2005) [40] x ? x ?
  External validation (Elias and colleagues,2017) [27] ? ?
Netherlands’ (Kop) [32] ‘machine learning’ for colorectal cancer
  Apparent performance ? ? ?
Danish (Nørrelund 1996 [31]) model for colorectal cancer
  Apparent performance ? ? x
  External validation (Elias and colleagues,2017) [27] ? ?
Netherlands’ (Muris 1995 [30]) model for abdominal complaints
  Apparent performance ? ? x
  External validation (Elias and colleagues,2017) [27] ? ?
Prediction model for abdominal cancers(Holtedahl and colleagues, 2018) [39]
Holtedahl, 2018 Apparent performance ? ? x ?
  1. Abbreviations: RAT (s) Risk assessment tool(s), SR2 Systematic review 2
  2. Notes:amultiple ordered by stage of development if different
  3. Key: , low risk of bias; x, high risk of bias; ?, unclear risk of bias