The following is a summary of “Improvements are needed in the adherence to the TRIPOD statement for clinical prediction models for patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis: a meta-research study,” published in the July 2024 issue of Pain by Feller et al.

Researchers conducted a retrospective study assessing the adherence of prediction model studies for spinal pain and osteoarthritis (OA) to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines.

They searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL for prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in patients with spinal pain or OA. The included studies were assessed for TRIPOD adherence using a standardized form. Two reviewers independently handled study selection and data extraction.

The result showed 66 studies, approximately 35% explicitly referencing TRIPOD guidelines. The median adherence to TRIPOD across all studies was 59% (IQR: 21.8), with the lowest reporting quality observed in the methods and results sections. Studies on neck pain showed higher adherence (median 76.5%) compared to studies on back pain (59%) and OA (53%). External validation studies had the highest adherence rates, with a median of 79.5% (IQR: 12.8). Studies that reported using TRIPOD guidelines had a median adherence rate 4 points higher than studies without TRIPOD. Over time, no significant improvement in adherence to TRIPOD guidelines was observed.

Investigators concluded that adherence to TRIPOD guidelines in spinal pain and OA prediction model studies was typically poor, particularly in the methods and results sections, indicating a need for stricter compliance to improve reporting quality.

Source: jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(24)00565-0/fulltext#%20