Abstract:Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that affects millions of people worldwide. The disease course varies greatly across individuals and many disease-modifying treatments with different safety and efficacy profiles have been developed recently. Prognostic models evaluated and shown to be valid in different settings have the potential to support people with MS and their physicians during the decision-making process for treatment or disease/life management, allow stratified and more precise interpretation of interventional trials, and provide insights into disease mechanisms. Many researchers have turned to prognostic models to help predict clinical outcomes in people with MS; however, to our knowledge, no widely accepted prognostic model for MS is being used in clinical practice yet. Objectives: To identify and summarise multivariable prognostic models, and their validation studies for quantifying the risk of clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity in adults with MS. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1996 until July 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and references citing the included studies. Selection criteria: We included all statistically developed multivariable prognostic models aiming to predict clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity, as measured by disability, relapse, conversion to definite MS, conversion to progressive MS, or a composite of these in adult individuals with MS. We also included any studies evaluating the performance of (i.e. validating) these models. There were no restrictions based on language, data source, timing of prognostication, or timing of outcome. Data collection and analysis: Pairs of review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data using a piloted form based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), assessed risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and assessed reporting deficiencies based on the checklist items in Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). The characteristics of the included models and their validations are described narratively. We planned to meta-analyse the discrimination and calibration of models with at least three external validations outside the model development study but no model met this criterion. We summarised between-study heterogeneity narratively but again could not perform the planned meta-regression. Main results: We included 57 studies, from which we identified 75 model developments, 15 external validations corresponding to only 12 (16%) of the models, and six author-reported validations. Only two models were externally validated multiple times. None of the identified external validations were performed by researchers independent of those that developed the model. The outcome was related to disease progression in 39 (41%), relapses in 8 (8%), conversion to definite MS in 17 (18%), and conversion to progressive MS in 27 (28%) of the 96 models or validations. The disease and treatment-related characteristics of included participants, and definitions of considered predictors and outcome, were highly heterogeneous amongst the studies. Based on the publication year, we observed an increase in the percent of participants on treatment, diversification of the diagnostic criteria used, an increase in consideration of biomarkers or treatment as predictors, and increased use of machine learning methods over time. Usability and reproducibility All identified models contained at least one predictor requiring the skills of a medical specialist for measurement or assessment. Most of the models (44; 59%) contained predictors that require specialist equipment likely to be absent from primary care or standard hospital settings. Over half (52%) of the developed models were not accompanied by model coefficients, tools, or instructions, which hinders their application, independent validation or reproduction. The data used in model developments were made publicly available or reported to be available on request only in a few studies (two and six, respectively). Risk of bias We rated all but one of the model developments or validations as having high overall risk of bias. The main reason for this was the statistical methods used for the development or evaluation of prognostic models; we rated all but two of the included model developments or validations as having high risk of bias in the analysis domain. None of the model developments that were externally validated or these models' external validations had low risk of bias. There were concerns related to applicability of the models to our research question in over one-third (38%) of the models or their validations. Reporting deficiencies Reporting was poor overall and there was no observable increase in the quality of reporting over time. The items that were unclearly reported or not reported at all for most of the included models or validations were related to sample size justification, blinding of outcome assessors, details of the full model or how to obtain predictions from it, amount of missing data, and treatments received by the participants. Reporting of preferred model performance measures of discrimination and calibration was suboptimal. Authors' conclusions: The current evidence is not sufficient for recommending the use of any of the published prognostic prediction models for people with MS in clinical routine today due to lack of independent external validations. The MS prognostic research community should adhere to the current reporting and methodological guidelines and conduct many more state-of-the-art external validation studies for the existing or newly developed models.

Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): from development to external validation

Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 2): how to undertake an external validation study

TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods

Clinical Prediction Models: Model Validation

Clinical Prediction Models: Basic Concepts, Application Scenarios, and Research Strategies

Prediction Models in Prehospital and Emergency Medicine Research: How to Derive and Internally Validate a Clinical Prediction Model

Clinical Prediction Models: Model Development

Reporting and Methods in Developing Prognostic Prediction Models for Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models

Clinical prediction models for mortality in patients with covid-19: external validation and individual participant data meta-analysis

External Validation of the Prognostic Prediction Model for 4-Year Risk of Metabolic Syndrome in Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Clinical prediction models and the multiverse of madness

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

Mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review

Targeted Development and Validation of Clinical Prediction Models in Secondary Care Settings: Opportunities and Challenges for Electronic Health Record Data

Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis

Evaluating risk prediction models for adults with heart failure: A systematic literature review

Development and internal-external validation of statistical and machine learning models for breast cancer prognostication: cohort study

Clinical Predictive Models for COVID-19: Systematic Study

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review

Assessing Performance and Clinical Usefulness in Prediction Models With Survival Outcomes: Practical Guidance for Cox Proportional Hazards Models