|Study design(s) targeted by the tool||Prediction modelsprediction-models|
|Additional details on designs||NA|
|Link to the tool||Get the PROBAST Tool|
|Primary publication||Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51-8.|
|Guidance document||Get the PROBAST guidance|
None known – please contact us if you are aware of any training that should be listed here.
None known – please contact us if you are aware of any translations that should be listed here.
|Record last updated||14/08/2023|
Related tools and Publications
Kaiser I, Pfahlberg AB, Mathes S, Uter W, Diehl K, Steeb T, Heppt MV, Gefeller O. Inter-Rater Agreement in Assessing Risk of Bias in Melanoma Prediction Studies Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST): Results from a Controlled Experiment on the Effect of Specific Rater Training. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023 Mar 2;12(5):1976
Langenhuijsen LF, Janse RJ, Venema E, Kent DM, van Diepen M, Dekker FW, Steyerberg EW, de Jong Y. Systematic meta-review of prediction studies demonstrates stable trends in bias and low PROBAST inter-rater agreement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2023 May 2.
Venema E, Wessler BS, Paulus JK, Salah R, Raman G, Leung LY, et al. Large-scale validation of the prediction model risk of bias assessment Tool (PROBAST) using a short form: high risk of bias models show poorer discrimination. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:32-9.
None known – please contact us if you are aware of any publications that should be listed here.
|Focuses on risk of bias, or makes a distinction between items that assess risk of bias and other aspects of study quality||Yes|
|Offers a method to reach either a domain specific or overall assessment of risk of bias||Yes|
|Used in at least one review that none of the tool authors were co-authors on or is an update to a previously recommended LATITUDES key tool||Yes|
|Tool development involving a range of stakeholders from different disciplines (e.g. methodologists, statisticians, clinicians)||Yes|
|Avoids recommending use of summary numerical quality scores||Yes|