Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has boosted the appearance of clinical predictions models in medical literature. Many of these models aim to provide guidance for decision making on treatment initiation. Special consideration on how to account for post-baseline treatments is needed when developing such models. We examined how post-baseline treatment was handled in published Covid-19 clinical prediction models and we illustrated how much estimated risks may differ according to how treatment is handled. METHODS: Firstly, we reviewed 33 Covid-19 prognostic models published in literature in the period up to 5 May 2020. We extracted: (1) the reported intended use of the model; (2) how treatment was incorporated during model development and (3) whether the chosen analysis strategy was in agreement with the intended use. Secondly, we used nationwide Dutch data on hospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 to illustrate how estimated mortality risks will differ when using four different analysis strategies to model ICU treatment. RESULTS: Of the 33 papers, 21 (64%) had misalignment between intended use and analysis strategy, 7 (21%) were unclear about the estimated risk and only 5 (15%) had clear alignment between intended use and analysis strategy. We showed with real data how different approaches to post-baseline treatment yield different estimated mortality risks, ranging between 33 and 46% for a 75 year-old patient with two medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Misalignment between intended use and analysis strategy is common in reported Covid-19 clinical prediction models. This can lead to considerable under or overestimation of intended risks.