Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 8, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
QUAPAS: An Adaptation of the QUADAS-2 Tool to Assess Prognostic Accuracy Studies
Jenny Lee1, Frits Mulder2, Mariska Leeflang1
1Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.L., M.L., P.M.B.).
Abstract:
Whereas diagnostic tests help detect the cause of signs and symptoms, prognostic tests assist in evaluating the probable course of the disease and future outcome. Studies to evaluate prognostic tests are longitudinal, which introduces sources of bias different from those for diagnostic accuracy studies. At present, systematic reviews of prognostic tests often use the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of included studies because no equivalent instrument exists for prognostic accuracy studies.
Abstract:
QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) is an adaptation of QUADAS-2 for prognostic accuracy studies. Questions likely to identify bias were evaluated in parallel and collated from QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies) and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and paired to the corresponding question (or domain) in QUADAS-2. A steering group conducted and reviewed 3 rounds of modifications before arriving at the final set of domains and signaling questions.
Abstract:
QUAPAS follows the same steps as QUADAS-2: Specify the review question, tailor the tool, draw a flow diagram, judge risk of bias, and identify applicability concerns. Risk of bias is judged across the following 5 domains: participants, index test, outcome, flow and timing, and analysis. Signaling questions assist the final judgment for each domain. Applicability concerns are assessed for the first 4 domains.
Abstract:
The authors used QUAPAS in parallel with QUADAS-2 and QUIPS in a systematic review of prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS improved the assessment of the flow and timing domain and flagged a study at risk of bias in the new analysis domain. Judgment of risk of bias in the analysis domain was challenging because of sparse reporting of statistical methods.
More Related Videos
12:18A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
07:32Author Spotlight: Investigating Immune Cell Dynamics in the Tumor Microenvironment — Challenges and Innovations in Cancer Prognosis
Published on: April 12, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Cochran's Q Test
Cancer Survival Analysis
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
Assumptions of Survival Analysis