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

J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Apr 15:111364. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: C.l.andaurnavarro@umcutrecht.nl.
² Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
³ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
⁴ Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁵ Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

PMID: 38631529
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111364

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.

Keywords: development; diagnosis; misinterpretation; misrepresentation; overextrapolation; overinterpretation; prognosis; validation.