Abstract：
This metaresearch study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies in patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of adherence to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. We searched for prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in patients with spinal pain or OA in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Using a standardized assessment form, we assessed the adherence to the TRIPOD of the included studies. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction phases. We included 66 studies. Approximately 35% of the studies declared to have used the TRIPOD. The median adherence to the TRIPOD was 59% overall (interquartile range (IQR): 21.8), with the items of the methods and results sections having the worst reporting. Studies on neck pain had better adherence to the TRIPOD than studies on back pain and OA (medians of 76.5%, 59%, and 53%, respectively). External validation studies had the highest total adherence (median: 79.5%, IQR: 12.8) of all the study types. The median overall adherence was 4 points higher in studies that declared TRIPOD use than those that did not. Finally, we did not observe any improvement in adherence over the years. The adherence to the TRIPOD of prediction models in the spinal and OA fields is low, with the methods and results sections being the most poorly reported. Future studies on prediction models in spinal pain and OA should follow the TRIPOD to improve their reporting completeness. PERSPECTIVE: This article provides data about adherence to the TRIPOD statement in 66 prediction model studies for spinal pain or OA. The adherence to the TRIPOD statement was found to be low (median adherence of 59%). This inadequate reporting may negatively impact the effective use of the models in clinical practice.
摘要：
这项荟萃研究旨在评估脊柱疼痛或骨关节炎（OA）患者预测模型研究报告的完整性，以遵守多变量预测模型的透明报告个体预后或诊断（TRIPOD）声明。我们在MEDLINE中寻找脊柱疼痛或OA患者的预后和诊断预测模型，Embase,WebofScience,和CINAHL。使用标准化的评估表格，我们评估了纳入研究对TRIPOD的依从性.两名独立的审阅者进行了研究选择和数据提取阶段。我们纳入了66项研究。大约35％的研究宣布使用了TRIPOD。总体上对TRIPOD的依从性中位数为59%(IQR：21.8)，方法和结果部分的项目报告最差。对颈部疼痛的研究比对背痛和OA的研究具有更好的依从性（中位数为76.5％，59%,53%,分别)。在所有研究类型中，外部验证研究的总依从性最高（中位数：79.5%；IQR：12.8）。在宣布使用TRIPOD的研究中，中位总体依从性比不使用TRIPOD的研究高4分。最后,多年来,我们没有观察到依从性有任何改善.脊柱和OA领域对预测模型TRIPOD的依从性较低，方法和结果部分的报道最差。关于脊柱疼痛和OA预测模型的未来研究应遵循TRIPOD，以提高其报告的完整性。前景：本文提供了66项脊柱疼痛或骨关节炎预测模型研究中对TRIPOD声明的依从性数据。发现对TRIPOD声明的依从性普遍较低（依从性中位数为59％）。这种不充分的报告可能会对模型在临床实践中的有效使用产生负面影响。
