Table 2.
Risk of bias assessment (using PROBAST) based on four domains across 51 studies that created prediction models for coronavirus disease 2019
| Authors | Risk of bias | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | Predictors | Outcome | Analysis | |
| Hospital admission in general population | ||||
| DeCaprio et al8 | High | Low | High | High |
| Diagnosis | ||||
| Original review | ||||
| Feng et al10 | Low | Unclear | High | High |
| Lopez-Rincon et al35 | Unclear | Low | Low | High |
| Meng et al12 | High | Low | High | High |
| Song et al30 | High | Unclear | Low | High |
| Yu et al24 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Update 1 | ||||
| Martin et al41 | High | High | High | High |
| Sun et al40 | Low | Low | Unclear | High |
| Wang et al43 | Low | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Wu et al45 | High | Unclear | Low | High |
| Zhou et al46 | Unclear | Low | High | High |
| Diagnostic imaging | ||||
| Original review | ||||
| Barstugan et al31 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Chen et al26 | High | Unclear | Low | High* |
| Gozes et al25 | Unclear | Unclear | High | High |
| Jin et al11 | High | Unclear | Unclear | High† |
| Jin et al33 | High | Unclear | High | High* |
| Li et al34 | Low | Unclear | Low | High |
| Shan et al28 | Unclear | Unclear | High | High† |
| Shi et al36 | High | Unclear | Low | High |
| Wang et al29 | High | Unclear | Low | High |
| Xu et al27 | High | Unclear | High | High |
| Song et al23 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | High |
| Zheng et al38 | Unclear | Unclear | High | High |
| Update 1 | ||||
| Abbas et al47 | High | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Apostolopoulos et al48 | High | Unclear | High | High |
| Bukhari et al49 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Chaganti et al50 | High | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Chowdhury et al39 | High | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Fu et al51 | High | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Gozes et al52 | High | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Imran et al53 | High | Unclear | Unclear | High* |
| Li et al54 | Low | Low | Unclear | High |
| Li et al55 | High | Unclear | High | High* |
| Hassanien et al56 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High* |
| Tang et al57 | Unclear | Unclear | High | High |
| Wang et al42 | Low | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Zhang et al58 | High | Unclear | High | High |
| Zhou et al59 | High | Unclear | High | High* |
| Prognosis | ||||
| Original review | ||||
| Bai et al9 | Low | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Caramelo et al18 | High | High | High | High |
| Gong et al32 | Low | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Lu et al19 | Low | Low | Low | High |
| Qi et al20 | Unclear | Low | Low | High |
| Shi et al37 | High | High | High | High |
| Xie et al7 | Low | Low | Low | High |
| Yan et al21 | Low | High | Low | High |
| Yuan et al22 | Low | High | Low | High |
| Update 1 | ||||
| Huang et al60 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Pourhomayoun et al61 | Low | Low | Unclear | High |
| Sarkar et al44 | High | High | High | High |
| Wang et al42 | Low | Low | Low | High |
| Zeng et al62 | Low | Low | Low | High |
PROBAST=prediction model risk of bias assessment tool.
Risk of bias high owing to calibration not being evaluated. If this criterion is not taken into account, analysis risk of bias would have been unclear.
Risk of bias high owing to calibration not being evaluated. If this criterion is not taken into account, analysis risk of bias would have been low.