Objective: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital or dying with the disease. Design: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the covid-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 17 February 2021, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results: 126 978 titles were screened, and 412 studies describing 731 new prediction models or validations were included. Of these 731, 125 were diagnostic models (including 75 based on medical imaging) and the remaining 606 were prognostic models for either identifying those at risk of covid-19 in the general population (13 models) or predicting diverse outcomes in those individuals with confirmed covid-19 (593 models). Owing to the widespread availability of diagnostic testing capacity after the summer of 2020, this living review has now focused on the prognostic models. Of these, 29 had low risk of bias, 32 had unclear risk of bias, and 545 had high risk of bias. The most common causes for high risk of bias were inadequate sample sizes (n=408, 67%) and inappropriate or incomplete evaluation of model performance (n=338, 56%). 381 models were newly developed, and 225 were external validations of existing models. The reported C indexes varied between 0.77 and 0.93 in development studies with low risk of bias, and between 0.56 and 0.78 in external validations with low risk of bias. The Qcovid models, the PRIEST score, Carr’s model, the ISARIC4C Deterioration model, and the Xie model showed adequate predictive performance in studies at low risk of bias. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/ . Conclusion: Prediction models for covid-19 entered the academic literature to support medical decision making at unprecedented speed and in large numbers. Most published prediction model studies were poorly reported and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performances are probably optimistic. Models with low risk of bias should be validated before clinical implementation, preferably through collaborative efforts to also allow an investigation of the heterogeneity in their performance across various populations and settings. Methodological guidance, as provided in this paper, should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction modellers should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/ , registration https://osf.io/wy245 . Readers’ note: This article is the final version of a living systematic review that has been updated over the past two years to reflect emerging evidence. This version is update 4 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 ( BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements ( https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp ). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Objective To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline and Embase until June 2013. Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population. Results 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively. Conclusions There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

While the opportunities of ML and AI in healthcare are promising, the growth of complex data-driven prediction models requires careful quality and applicability assessment before they are applied and disseminated in daily practice. This scoping review aimed to identify actionable guidance for those closely involved in AI-based prediction model (AIPM) development, evaluation and implementation including software engineers, data scientists, and healthcare professionals and to identify potential gaps in this guidance. We performed a scoping review of the relevant literature providing guidance or quality criteria regarding the development, evaluation, and implementation of AIPMs using a comprehensive multi-stage screening strategy. PubMed, Web of Science, and the ACM Digital Library were searched, and AI experts were consulted. Topics were extracted from the identified literature and summarized across the six phases at the core of this review: (1) data preparation, (2) AIPM development, (3) AIPM validation, (4) software development, (5) AIPM impact assessment, and (6) AIPM implementation into daily healthcare practice. From 2683 unique hits, 72 relevant guidance documents were identified. Substantial guidance was found for data preparation, AIPM development and AIPM validation (phases 1–3), while later phases clearly have received less attention (software development, impact assessment and implementation) in the scientific literature. The six phases of the AIPM development, evaluation and implementation cycle provide a framework for responsible introduction of AI-based prediction models in healthcare. Additional domain and technology specific research may be necessary and more practical experience with implementing AIPMs is needed to support further guidance.

Background: In twin pregnancies, the rates of adverse perinatal outcome and subsequent long‐term morbidity are substantial, and mainly result from preterm birth (PTB).Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of progestogen treatment in the prevention of neonatal morbidity or PTB in twin pregnancies using individual participant data meta‐analysis (IPDMA).Search strategy: We searched international scientific databases, trial registration websites, and references of identified articles.Selection criteria: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of 17–hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17Pc) or vaginally administered natural progesterone, compared with placebo or no treatment.Data collection and analysis: Investigators of identified RCTs were asked to share their IPD. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed for chorionicity, cervical length, and prior spontaneous PTB.Main results: Thirteen trials included 3768 women and their 7536 babies. Neither 17Pc nor vaginal progesterone reduced the incidence of adverse perinatal outcome (17Pc relative risk, RR 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.97–1.4, vaginal progesterone RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77–1.2). In a subgroup of women with a cervical length of ≤25 mm, vaginal progesterone reduced adverse perinatal outcome when cervical length was measured at randomisation (15/56 versus 22/60; RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.47–0.70) or before 24 weeks of gestation (14/52 versus 21/56; RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42–0.75).Author's conclusions: In unselected women with an uncomplicated twin gestation, treatment with progestogens (intramuscular 17Pc or vaginal natural progesterone) does not improve perinatal outcome. Vaginal progesterone may be effective in the reduction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a cervical length of ≤25 mm; however, further research is warranted to confirm this finding.