PROBAST| Study design(s) targeted by the tool | Prediction modelsprediction-models |
|---|---|
| Additional details on designs | NA |
| Tool area | Health |
| Link to the tool | Get the PROBAST Tool |
Details | |
| Website | https://www.probast.org/ |
| 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. |
| DOI | 10.7326/M18-1376 |
| Guidance document | Get the PROBAST guidance |
| Training | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any training that should be listed here. |
| Language | English |
| Translations | 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 | |
| Previous versions | None |
| Updated versions | None |
| Related tools | None |
| Evaluations | 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. |
| Other publications | None known – please contact us if you are aware of any publications that should be listed here. |
Key Criteria | |
| 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 |
| 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 |
