» Articles » PMID: 30596876

PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration

Overview
Journal Ann Intern Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 Jan 1
PMID 30596876
Citations 474
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Methodological Rigor in AI-Driven Systematic Reviews: Addressing Key Limitations in Predicting TACE Outcomes.

Lu Y, Wan D Dig Dis Sci. 2025; .

PMID: 40088412 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-025-08969-1.


Widely accessible prognostication using medical history for fetal growth restriction and small for gestational age in nationwide insured women.

Sufriyana H, Amani F, Al Hajiri A, Wu Y, Su E Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8340.

PMID: 40065124 PMC: 11894118. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92986-7.


Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang X, Zhang P, Lu H, Luo D, Yang D, Li K BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e088253.

PMID: 40044209 PMC: 11883545. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088253.


A systematic review of natural language processing applications in Trauma & Orthopaedics.

Farrow L, Raja A, Zhong M, Anderson L Bone Jt Open. 2025; 6(3):264-274.

PMID: 40037398 PMC: 11879473. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0081.R1.


Accuracy of machine learning and traditional statistical models in the prediction of postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review.

Baeta T, Rocha A, Oliveira J, Couto da Silva A, Reis Z BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e094455.

PMID: 40032385 PMC: 11877273. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094455.