Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST; www.probast.org) provides a set of items to assess the quality of medical studies on so-called prediction tools that calculate an individual's probability of having or developing a certain disease or health outcome. Previous research found low interrater reliability (IRR; ie, how consistently two assessors rate aspects of the same study) when using PROBAST. To understand why this is the case, we conducted a large study involving more than 30 experts from around the world, all of whom applied PROBAST to the same set of prediction tool studies. Based on more than 2150 PROBAST assessments, we identified which PROBAST items led to the most disagreements between raters, explored reasons for these disagreements, and examined whether the use of so-called consensus meetings (ie, different assessors of the same study discuss their ratings and decide on a finalized rating) impacted PROBAST ratings. Our study found that the IRR between different assessors of the same study was higher than previously reported. One explanation for the better agreement compared to previous research may be the preplanning on how to assess certain PROBAST aspects before starting the assessments, as well as holding well-structured consensus meetings. These improvements lead to a more effective use of PROBAST in evaluating the trustworthiness and quality of prediction tools in the health-care domain.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
T. K. Kaul
Utrecht University
Johanna AAG Damen
Utrecht University
Laure Wynants
Maastricht University
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
KU Leuven
Utrecht University
University Medical Center Utrecht
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kaul et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69debe26499d77a496b0cb38 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111732
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: