Prediction models of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis with validation ====================================================================================================== * T’ng Chang Kwok * Natalie Batey * Ka Ling Luu * Andrew Prayle * Don Sharkey ## Abstract **Introduction** Neonatal bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is associated with lifelong respiratory and neurological sequalae. Prediction models could identify infants at greatest risk of BPD and allow targeted preventative strategies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with external validation of identified models. **Methods** Studies using predictors available before day 14 of life to predict BPD in very preterm infants were included. Two reviewers assessed 7,628 studies for eligibility. Meta-analysis of externally validated models was followed by validation using 62,864 very preterm infants in England and Wales. **Results** 64 studies using 53 prediction models were included totalling 274,407 infants (range 32–156,587/study). 35 (55%) studies predated 2010; 39 (61%) were single-centre studies. 46 (87%) models were developed for the first week of life. Overall, 97% of studies had a high risk of bias, especially in the analysis domain. Internal (25%) and external (30%) validation were performed infrequently in the 44 model derivation studies. Following meta-analysis of 22 BPD and 11 BPD/death composite models, Laughon’s day one model was the most promising in predicting BPD and death with a fair C-statistic of 0.76 (95% CI 0.70–0.81) and good calibration. Six models were externally validated in our cohort with a C-statistic between 0.70 to 0.90 but with poor calibration. **Conclusion** Few BPD prediction models were developed with contemporary populations, underwent external validation, or had calibration and impact analyses. To reduce the adverse impact of BPD, we need contemporary, validated, and dynamic prediction models to allow targeted preventative strategies. **What is the key question?**This review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of all BPD prediction models developed to address the clinical uncertainty of which predictive model is sufficiently valid and generalisable for use in clinical practice and research. **What is the bottom line?**Published BPD prediction models are mostly outdated, single centre and lack external validation. **Why read on?**Laughon’s 2011 model is the most promising but more robust models, using contemporary data with external validation are needed to support better treatments. Keywords * Bronchopulmonary dysplasia * prediction model * preterm infant ## Introduction Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), one of the most common and complex neonatal conditions1, continues to increase and affects approximately 28,000 and 18,000 babies annually in Europe2 and the US3 respectively. Preterm infants with BPD have significant long-term respiratory and neurodevelopmental complications into adulthood4, including abnormal lung function5 and poor school performance4. There are a myriad of trials with at least 24 Cochrane reviews looking at BPD preventative interventions, including postnatal corticosteroids. However, their benefit in preventing BPD may not outweigh the significant side effects, including gastrointestinal perforation and neurodevelopmental impairment6,7. This demonstrates the complexity in BPD management in balancing the risk of significant long-term morbidity from BPD with that of exposure to potentially harmful treatments8. BPD prediction models aim to provide a personalised risk approach in identifying high-risk very preterm infants for timely preventative treatments. Despite numerous models being developed, none are used routinely in clinical practice. This review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of all BPD prediction models developed to address the clinical uncertainty of which predictive model is sufficiently valid and generalisable for clinical and research use. Secondly, we will validate eligible models in a large national contemporaneous cohort of very preterm infants. ## Material and Methods ### Systematic Review There was no deviation from the protocol published in PROSPERO9. Standard Cochrane Neonatal and Prognosis Methods Group methodology were used. ### Inclusion criteria Cohort, case-control, and randomised controlled trials used in developing or validating the prediction models were included. Very preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (GA) and less than two weeks old at the time of BPD prediction were included. This ensures the clinical applicability and timeliness of the prediction models to support clinical decision making on preventative treatments. Studies that used non-universally accessible predictors such as pulmonary function tests, ultrasonography and biomarkers were excluded. BPD was defined as a respiratory support requirement at either 28 days of age or 36 weeks of corrected gestational age (CGA)10. The composite outcome of BPD and death before discharge was included as a secondary outcome. ### Search methods Standard Cochrane Neonatal11 and prognostic study search filters12 were used. “Bronchopulmonary dysplasia OR BPD OR chronic lung disease OR CLD” search terms were used to search the CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus databases until 13/08/2021 (**Appendix 1**). ### Data collection Two reviewers (TK, NB or KL) independently screened the title and abstract as well as full-text reports for inclusion before independently extracting data and assessing the risk of bias using the PROBAST tool13 (**Appendix 2**). These were done using a web-based tool CADIMA14. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. ### Prediction model performance measure Discrimination (C-statistics), calibration (Observed:Expected ratio (O:E ratio)) and classification (net benefit analysis) measures were extracted alongside their uncertainties. ### Missing data Study authors were contacted to obtain any missing data. Failing that, missing performance measure were approximated using the methodology proposed by Debray et al.15 and R statistical package “metamisc”16. ### Meta-analysis Meta-analysis of the performance measures, using the random-effects approach and R statistical package “metafor”17, was performed for externally validated models. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies with an overall high risk of bias. We pre-specified that we would assess the source of heterogeneity15 and reporting deficiencies18 if more than ten studies were included. ### Conclusions The adapted **G**rades of **R**ecommendation, **A**ssessment, **D**evelopment and **E**valuation (GRADE) framework19 was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. ## External Validation of Eligible Models ### Study design A population-based retrospective cohort study from the UK National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD)20 was used to externally validate BPD prediction models identified in the systematic review. We included all very preterm infants admitted to 185 neonatal units in England and Wales from January 2010 to December 2017. This encompasses over 90% of English neonatal units in 2010, with full coverage in England and Wales in 2012 and 2014 respectively. Infants with birthweight z score below -4 or above 4 were excluded as they were likely erroneous entries. Further details of the data items extracted are found within the National Neonatal Dataset[29] and **Appendix 3**. Ethical approval was granted by the Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/YH/0115). ### Statistical analysis Data extraction and statistical analysis were done using STATA/SE version 16 (StataCorp) and R version 4 (R Core Team). Summary statistics (median, interquartile range (IQR) and percentages) were used to describe the data. Missing data was imputed five times using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations21. Model performances were assessed in three domains: discrimination (C-statistics), calibration (calibration plot and O:E ratio) and utility measure (decision curve analysis). ## Results ### Systematic review #### Literature search Of the 7,628 potentially eligible studies identified, 194 full-text articles were screened with 122 articles excluded as studies identified risk factors rather than developing prediction models (48%), predictors available after two weeks of age (24%), infants above 32 weeks GA at birth (17%), non-universally accessible predictors (10%) or wrong outcome measure reported (2%). Data were extracted from the 72 full-text articles (**Appendix 4**), encompassing 64 studies and 53 BPD prediction models (**Figure 1**). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/F1) Figure 1: Flow diagram of literature search and included studies. #### Description of included studies Of the 64 included studies, 31 were BPD prediction model development studies, 20 were validation studies, and 13 were development and external validation studies. Fifty-five of the studies were cohort studies; five were randomised controlled trials; two used a combination of randomised control trials and cohort studies with one case-control study and another with unreported study design. Twenty-six studies were performed in North America, fourteen in Europe, thirteen in Asia, five in South America and Australia/New Zealand each and one study was carried out worldwide. Twenty studies developed and validated BPD prediction models based on infants born before 2000, with a further 15 studies using infants born between 2000 to 2010. The 64 included studies recruited 274,407 (range 32 and 156,587) infants, with the majority (50 studies) recruited less than 1,000 infants. 39 (61%) studies were conducted in single centre. Forty-seven studies used BPD as their outcome, while 14 studies used a BPD/death composite outcome, with three further studies reporting both BPD and BPD/death composite outcomes. Thirty-one studies defined BPD at 36 weeks CGA, while 22 studies used the timepoint of 28 days old. Six studies defined BPD using both timepoints. Five studies did not report how BPD was defined (**Table 1**). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/T1) Table 1. Characteristics of 64 included studies. NR = Not reported. D = Derivation. V = Validation. RCT = Randomised controlled trials. Sev= Severe. * Data obtained from the original study protocol (Cools et al 201022). 70% of the 44 derivation studies used logistic regression to develop the BPD prediction tool, with 11% used univariate analysis; 5% used clinical consensus as well as a combination of logistic regression and classification and tree analysis (CART) respectively; and 2% used CART, gradient boosting, Bayesian network and a combination of logistic regression and support vector machine, respectively. Complete case analysis was used in 41% of the included derivation studies, while handling of missing data was not reported in the remaining 59%. Internal and external validation was done in 25% and 30% of the studies, respectively. Validation was not done in the remaining 45% of studies. 75% of the studies assessed discrimination using C-statistics. In contrast, only 16% of the studies evaluated calibration using the goodness of fit (five studies), calibration plot (1 study) and O:E ratio (1 study). Of the 44 models, ten (23%), eight (18%) and four (9%) models provided a formula, score chart and nomogram respectively. Only two (5%) models provided an online calculator (**Table 2**). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/T2) Table 2. Methodology used by the derivation studies. NR = Not reported. CART = Classification and regression tree. SVM = Support vector machine. ROC = receiver operating characteristics curve. O:E ratio = Observed:expected ratio. Of the 53 BPD prediction models identified, 19 used predictors available within 24 hours of age, while 20 and six models relied on predictors available between two to seven days and above seven days of age respectively. Seven models used predictors available at various timepoints while the timepoints were unavailable for one model. The BPD prediction models considered a median of 14 predictors before using a median of five predictors in the final models. The five most used predictors were GA, birthweight, the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), gender and invasive ventilation requirement, which were used in 33%–69% of models (**Appendix 5**). #### Risk of Bias The majority of the studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias for the participants (84%), predictors (92%) and outcome (89%) domains. 60 (94%) studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias in the analysis domain based on the PROBAST tool13 due to various reasons including calibration not assessed (55 studies (86%)); small sample size (37 studies (58%)); inappropriate handling of missing data (21 studies (33%)); lack of internal/external validation (9 studies (14%)); inappropriate selection approach for predictors (6 studies (9%)); and inappropriate handling of continuous predictors (2 studies (3%)). Twenty-one studies (33%) had high applicability concerns in the participant’s domain as they targeted a specific group of very preterm infants, usually infants at a higher risk of BPD (for example, ventilated infants only in 17 studies (27%)). Although universally accessible, predictors used in ten studies (16%) may not be routinely collected. Eight studies (13%) used BPD definitions that deviated against current consensus10 (**Figure 2, Appendix 6**). ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/F2) Figure 2: Summary of risk of bias assessments for included studies based on the PROBAST tool13. #### Discrimination The C-statistics of the included prediction models ranged from 0.52–0.95 in the external validation studies with better performance in models using predictors beyond seven days of age. Meta-analysis could only be done on 22 (50%) and 11 (35%) models for BPD and BPD/death composite outcome respectively, as the remaining 22 and 20 models were only validated in one study. The C-statistics confidence interval (CI) were wide due to the small number of studies in each meta-analysis. The five models with CI above 0.5 for BPD from the meta-analysis were CRIB I23, CRIB II24 as well as Valenzuela–Stutman 201925 (Birth, Day 3 and 14 models). Similarly, for the BPD/death composite, the five models with CI above 0.5 from the meta-analysis were Laughon 201126 (Day 1, 3, 7 and 14 models) and Valenzuela–Stutman 201925 (Day 14 model) (**Appendix 7**). Meta-analysis for the Valenzuela–Stutman 2019 models25 could only be performed after including validation findings from our cohort study. #### Calibration The O:E ratio was reported in four external validation studies27-30 evaluating six prediction models (Rozycki 199627, Parker 199228 and Laughon 201126 (Day 1, 3, 7 and 14 models)) with considerable variation in the O:E ratio among the included models. Meta-analysis of the O:E ratio could only be done on one model (Laughon 201126 (Day 1)) with an O:E ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.85–0.99) (**Appendix 8**). The calibration plot was reported in three studies29-31, assessing six models (Palta 199032, Sinkin 199033, Ryan 199634, Kim 200535 as well as Laughon 201126 (Day 1 and 3 models) (**Appendix 9**). #### Classification No studies reported net benefit or decision curve analyses. #### Heterogeneity and reporting deficiencies As there were less than ten validation studies in a meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and funnel plots were not performed. Sensitivity analysis was not performed as all studies had an overall high risk of bias except for two studies29,36. #### Summary of findings Due to the lack of validation studies, a conclusion could only be made for one model Laughon 201126. There was moderate quality of evidence that the discrimination and calibration performances of the Laughon 201126 model in predicting the BPD/death composite outcome using predictors at day one of age with C-statistic of 0.76 (95% CI 0.70–0.81) and O:E ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.85–0.99). The evidence was downgraded by one level due to study limitation whereby there was variation in the BPD definition used, as well as some studies recruiting high-risk infants only (such as invasively ventilated infants) to validate the model. ### External validation #### Patient cohort After exclusions (**Appendix 10**), 62,864 very preterm infants were included (**Appendix 11**). 17,775 (31%) infants developed BPD while 5,718 (9%) infants died before discharge from the neonatal unit. #### Model performance We were able to externally validate six prediction models (Henderson-Smart 200637, Valenzuela–Stutman 201925 (Day1, 3 and 14 models), Shim 202138 and Ushida 202139) in our retrospective cohort. The variables in the remaining models were not available in our cohort. The discrimination (C-statistics) and calibration (O:E ratio and calibration plot) (**Figure 3**) performances were variable among the models. Although the models displayed fair to good discrimination with C-statistics of 0.70–0.90, they had poor calibration as indicated by the calibration plot and O:E ratio between 0.39– 2.31. The Valenzuela–Stutman 2019 models25 appear to overestimate the predicted risk, whereas the remaining three models (Henderson-Smart 200637, Shim 202138 and Ushida 202139) tend to underestimate the predicted risk. Of the six externally validated models, four models (Henderson-Smart 200637, Valenzuela–Stutman 201925 (Day 14 models), Shim 202138 and Ushida 202139) indicated superior net benefit across a reasonable range of threshold probabilities of 30% to 60% in deciding postnatal corticosteroid treatment in the decision curve analysis (**Appendix 12**). The threshold probabilities used were identified in a meta-regression of 20 randomised controlled trials8. ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/19/2022.07.19.22277664/F3) Figure 3: Discrimination (C-statistics) and calibration (O:E ratio and calibration plots) characteristics of prediction models externally validated using a retrospective cohort for (A) bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (n=57,572) and (B) composite BPD and death (n=62,864). ## Discussion Our study is an update to the systematic review carried out nearly a decade ago31, with a further 27 prediction models identified since the last review. Our systematic review identified 64 studies that developed and/or validated 53 BPD prediction models with meta-analysis carried out on 22 models. Due to the lack of external validation studies, we could not identify a prediction model for routine clinical use. Further external validation, including assessment of both discrimination and calibration performances in a population similar to that whereby the model will be used, is needed before any model could be adopted in clinical practice. However, the most promising prediction model that could be considered based on our meta-analysis was Laughon 201126 in predicting the BPD/death composite outcome using predictors at day one of age. Further re-calibration of the model based on the local population of interest, with re-assessment of its performance in subsequent external validation studies (if re-calibrated), may be needed before being used in clinical practice. We have also externally validated six prediction models25,37-39 in our retrospective population-based cohort study. Although they have fair to good discrimination, they were not well calibrated in our cohort. To be useful, prediction tools need to be generalizable to current datasets highlighting the importance of external validation. ### Implications for clinical practice and research The implementation of BPD prediction models in clinical practice is limited by the lack of external validation of the published models. Less than a third of the identified prediction models were externally validated. Furthermore, half of the externally validated models were only validated by one study. This potentially limits the generalisability of the model performance to other infant populations. ### Sample size Most external validation studies had small sample sizes or were restricted to specific high-risk infant populations (for example, ventilated infants only). Furthermore, 61% of studies were single centre only. This potentially limits the generalisability of the models. It is recommended that prediction model development studies should have at least 20 infants with the outcome of interest for each candidate predictor, while validation studies should have at least 100 infants with the outcome13. ### Missing values The majority of the studies did not report missing data or excluded infants with missing data. A clear description of the handling of missing data should be provided. Complete case analysis should be avoided if possible13. ### Variation in prediction timepoint and outcome definition Nearly three-quarters of the included prediction models predicted BPD, the remainder predicting the BPD/death composite outcome. As death and BPD are semi-competitive risks, infants who died before 36 weeks CGA may have a higher risk of developing BPD if they had survived until 36 weeks CGA. Hence, the potential predictive information of death should be accounted for in BPD prediction modelling. The included models also made predictions at a variety of timepoints. Therefore, a meta-analysis of the models was difficult and may limit the clinical settings in which the model can be used. It may be sensible for the performance of future prediction models to be externally validated for BPD as well as the BPD/death composite outcome at three prediction timepoints of one, seven days and 14 days of age. These timepoints would allow timely preventative treatment or research recruitment to be targeted to high-risk infants. ### Predictors The predictors used in the model should be easily assessed routinely during daily clinical practice and not dependable on clinical practice, such as weight loss and fluid intake. Future prediction models should also be dynamic, accounting for the changing status of the infant over time and clinical trajectory. Predictor selection based on traditional stepwise approach or univariable analysis should be avoided, especially in small datasets. Instead, predictor selection based on a priori knowledge or statistical approach not based on prior statistical tests between predictor and outcome (e.g. principal component analysis) may be better methods13. ### Model performance Both discrimination (C-statistics) and calibration (calibration plot or O:E ratio) performances of the prediction models need to be assessed during external validation. A model with fair to good discrimination may be poorly calibrated31. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test alone without other calibration measures was found not to be a suitable method to assess calibration as it is sensitive to sample size13. The test is often non-significant (i.e. good calibration) in small datasets while usually significant (i.e. poor calibration) in large datasets. Since the recommendation to assess calibration in the last review nearly a decade ago31, only two further studies29,30 assessed calibration using calibration plots or O:E ratios. An impact analysis was not carried out in any of the identified prediction models to evaluate if the prediction model improved patient outcomes. Decision curve analysis40 may be used as an initial screening method to assess the net benefit of using the prediction model before carrying out further impact analysis. Decision curve analysis can be used on the external validation dataset without further data collection. ### Practicality of model Prediction models developed should be practical and easy to use at the bedside. Only two published models26,39 provided online calculators to allow easy access risk assessment. Changes in clinical practice and rising BPD rates, potentially makes previously published models outdated affecting its predictive ability. Over half of the published models used data from babies born more than a decade ago. Hence, new models should consider a built-in feature to allow it to learn from future babies and adapt its performance to new practices. ### Strength The systematic review was carried out based on standard Cochrane methodologies as well as recent recommendations for meta-analysis of prediction models15 and risk of bias assessment13. There were no language nor date restrictions. The review is anticipated to guide clinicians and researchers in not only developing and/or validating BPD prediction models in very premature infants based on recommendations of the review, but also in identifying the most promising prediction model to be externally validated in their local population. The use of recent routinely collected clinical information in our external validation study, coupled with its large population coverage, provides an accurate representation of the current neonatal practice in England and Wales. This large cohort of nearly 63,000 very preterm infants, including infants receiving both invasive and non-invasive ventilation, forms an ideal cohort to externally validate and assess BPD prediction models. ### Limitation Only six out of the 53 identified prediction models could be validated in our cohort. Hence, the performance of the remaining models in our cohort was unclear. However, it is crucial that future models should only use predictors that are easily assessed in clinical practice to ensure their successful clinical implementation. ## Conclusion As preterm infant survival increases, more survivors are diagnosed with BPD along with the long-term respiratory and neurological consequences. Despite almost a doubling in the number of BPD prediction models published over the last decade, most identified in our systemic review are not used in routine clinical practice. This is due to a lack of good quality external validation studies assessing their performance on the local population of interest. Furthermore, calibration of the models is often not appropriately evaluated in most of the models. Models should be externally validated with a subsequent impact analysis before being adopted in clinical practice. Decision curve analysis may be a good screening tool to assess the net benefit of the tool prior to impact analysis. Our systematic review has also made recommendations for future BPD prediction models including consideration of additional predictors, a more dynamic model accounting for changes in the infant’s condition over time and their trajectory, and the ability to adapt performance with evolving clinical practice. A good quality, well-validated BPD prediction tool is needed to provide personalised preventative treatment and allow targeted trial recruitment to reduce the long-term impact in this vulnerable and expanding population. ## Supporting information Supplementary Data [[supplements/277664_file03.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Funding statement This research received no specific funding. ## Competing interest statements None declared. ## Acknowledgement We would like to thank Prof Valenzuela–Stutman in providing the algorithm for the Valenzuela–Stutman models25. We are grateful to all the families that agreed to include their baby’s data in the NNRD, the health professionals from the UK Neonatal Collaborative (**Appendix 13**) who recorded data and the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit team. * Received July 19, 2022. * Revision received July 19, 2022. * Accepted July 19, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## Full references 1. 1.Lui K, Lee SK, Kusuda S, et al. Trends in Outcomes for Neonates Born Very Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight in 11 High-Income Countries. J Pediatr 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.08.020 [published Online First: 2019/10/03] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.08.020&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 2. 2.Tan S, Szatkowski L, Moreton W, et al. Early childhood respiratory morbidity and antibiotic use in ex-preterm infants: a primary care population-based cohort study. Eur Respir J 2020;56(1) doi: 10.1183/13993003.00202-2020 [published Online First: 2020/07/30] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI1Ni8xLzIwMDAyMDIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNy8xOS8yMDIyLjA3LjE5LjIyMjc3NjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 3. 3.Thebaud B, Goss KN, Laughon M, et al. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 2019;5:23. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0127-7 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41572-019-0127-7&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Cheong JLY, Doyle LW. An update on pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Seminars in Perinatology 2018;42(7):478–84. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2018.09.013 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.semperi.2018.09.013&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 5. 5.Gough A, Linden M, Spence D, et al. Impaired lung function and health status in adult survivors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Eur Respir J 2014;43(3):808–16. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00039513 [published Online First: 2013/07/30] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQzLzMvODA4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDcvMTkvMjAyMi4wNy4xOS4yMjI3NzY2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 6. 6.Doyle LW, Cheong JL, Hay S, et al. Early (< 7 days) systemic postnatal corticosteroids for prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;10:CD001146. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001146.pub6 [published Online First: 20211021] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD001146.pub6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 7. 7.Doyle LW, Cheong JL, Hay S, et al. Late (≥ 7 days) systemic postnatal corticosteroids for prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;11:CD001145. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001145.pub5 [published Online First: 20211111] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD001145.pub5&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Doyle LW, Halliday HL, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. An update on the impact of postnatal systemic corticosteroids on mortality and cerebral palsy in preterm infants: effect modification by risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Journal of Pediatrics 2014;165(6):1258–60. doi: [https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.07.049](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.07.049) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.07.049&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25217197&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 9. 9.Kwok T, Sharkey D. Systematic review of prognostic models for predicting bronchopulmonary dysplasia in very preterm infants. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020205215 Available from: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display\_record.php?ID=CRD42020205215](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020205215). 10. 10.Higgins RD, Jobe AH, Koso-Thomas M, et al. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Executive Summary of a Workshop. J Pediatr 2018;197:300–08. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.01.043 [published Online First: 2018/03/16] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.01.043&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29551318&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 11. 11.Cochrane Neonatal. Resource for Review Authors 2020. [https://neonatal.cochrane.org/resources-review-authors](https://neonatal.cochrane.org/resources-review-authors) (accessed 19/08/2020). 12. 12.Geersing GJ, Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff P, et al. Search Filters for Finding Prognostic and Diagnostic Prediction Studies in Medline to Enhance Systematic Reviews. Plos One 2012;7(2) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032844 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0032844&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22393453&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 13. 13.Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, et al. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2019;170(1):51-+. doi: 10.7326/m18-1376 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M18-1376&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30596875&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 14. 14.Kohl C, McIntosh EJ, Unger S, et al. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence 2018;7(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5&link_type=DOI) 15. 15.Debray TPA, Damen J, Snell KIE, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance. Bmj-British Medical Journal 2017;356 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6460 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNTYvamFuMDVfMTEvaTY0NjAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNy8xOS8yMDIyLjA3LjE5LjIyMjc3NjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 16. 16.Debray T, de Jong V. Metamisc: Diagnostic and Prognostic Meta-Analysis. 2019. [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metamisc](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metamisc) (accessed 19/08/2020). [ 17. 17.Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010;36(3):1–48. doi: [https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03](https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03) 18. 18.Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KI, et al. External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges. BMJ 2016;353:i3140. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3140 [published Online First: 2016/06/22] [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNTMvanVuMjJfNy9pMzE0MCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA3LzE5LzIwMjIuMDcuMTkuMjIyNzc2NjQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 19. 19.Huguet A, Hayden JA, Stinson J, et al. Judging the quality of evidence in reviews of prognostic factor research: adapting the GRADE framework. Syst Rev 2013;2:71. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-71 [published Online First: 2013/09/05] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/2046-4053-2-71&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24007720&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 20. 20.Gale C, Morris I, Board NDAUNS. The UK National Neonatal Research Database: using neonatal data for research, quality improvement and more. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2016;101(4):216–8. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309928 [published Online First: 2016/03/11] [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZWRwcmFjdCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMDEvNC8yMTYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNy8xOS8yMDIyLjA3LjE5LjIyMjc3NjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 21. 21.Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393 [published Online First: 2009/06/29] [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzMzgvanVuMjlfMS9iMjM5MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA3LzE5LzIwMjIuMDcuMTkuMjIyNzc2NjQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 22. 22.Cools F, Askie LM, Offringa M. Elective high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: An individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Pediatrics 2009;9:33. doi: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-9-33](http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-9-33) 23. 23.The CRIB (clinical risk index for babies) score: a tool for assessing initial neonatal risk and comparing performance of neonatal intensive care units. The International Neonatal Network. Lancet 1993;342(8865):193–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0140-6736(93)92296-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8100927&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LN62200009&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Parry G, Tucker J, Tarnow-Mordi W, et al. CRIB II: an update of the clinical risk index for babies score. Lancet 2003;361(9371):1789–91. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13397-1 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13397-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12781540&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183074800013&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Valenzuela-Stutman D, Marshall G, Tapia JL, et al. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia: risk prediction models for very-low-birth-weight infants. J Perinatol 2019;39(9):1275–81. doi: 10.1038/s41372-019-0430-x [published Online First: 2019/07/25] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41372-019-0430-x&link_type=DOI) 26. 26.Laughon MM, Langer JC, Bose CL, et al. Prediction of bronchopulmonary dysplasia by postnatal age in extremely premature infants. American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine 2011;183(12):1715–22. doi: [https://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201101-0055OC](https://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201101-0055OC) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/rccm.201101-0055OC&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21471086&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000292305600024&link_type=ISI) 27. 27.Rozycki HJ, Narla L. Early versus late identification of infants at high risk of developing moderate to severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Pediatric Pulmonology 1996;21(6):345–52. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0496(199606)21:6<345::AID-PPUL1>3.0.CO;2-K&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8927460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UV08400001&link_type=ISI) 28. 28.Parker RA, Lindstrom DP, Cotton RB. Improved survival accounts for most, but not all, of the increase in bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Pediatrics 1992;90(5):663–8. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTAvNS82NjMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNy8xOS8yMDIyLjA3LjE5LjIyMjc3NjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 29. 29.Rysavy MA, Li L, Tyson JE, et al. Should Vitamin A Injections to Prevent Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia or Death Be Reserved for High-Risk Infants? Reanalysis of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network Randomized Trial. Journal of Pediatrics 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.05.022 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.05.022&link_type=DOI) 30. 30.Baker EK, Davis PG. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Outcome Estimator in Current Neonatal Practice. Acta Paediatr 2020 doi: 10.1111/apa.15427 [published Online First: 2020/06/21] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/apa.15427&link_type=DOI) 31. 31.Onland W, Debray TP, Laughon MM, et al. Clinical prediction models for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review and external validation study. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:207. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-13-207 [published Online First: 2013/12/17] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2431-13-207&link_type=DOI) 32. 32.Palta M, Gabbert D, Fryback D, et al. Development and validation of an index for scoring baseline respiratory disease in the very low birth weight neonate. Pediatrics 1990;86(5):714–21. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiODYvNS83MTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNy8xOS8yMDIyLjA3LjE5LjIyMjc3NjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 33. 33.Sinkin RA, Cox C, Phelps DL. Predicting risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: selection criteria for clinical trials. Pediatrics 1990;86(5):728–36. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiODYvNS83MjgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNy8xOS8yMDIyLjA3LjE5LjIyMjc3NjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 34. 34.Ryan SW, Nycyk J, Shaw BN. Prediction of chronic neonatal lung disease on day 4 of life. European Journal of Pediatrics 1996;155(8):668–71. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/BF01957150&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8839722&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UY20400011&link_type=ISI) 35. 35.Kim YD, Kim EA, Kim KS, et al. Scoring method for early prediction of neonatal chronic lung disease using modified respiratory parameters. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2005;20(3):397–401. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3346/jkms.2005.20.3.397&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15953859&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) 36. 36.Baud O, Laughon M, Lehert P. Survival without Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia of Extremely Preterm Infants: A Predictive Model at Birth. Neonatology 2021:1–9. doi: [https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000515898](https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000515898) 37. 37.Henderson-Smart DJ, Hutchinson JL, Donoghue DA, et al. Prenatal predictors of chronic lung disease in very preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition 2006;91(1):F40–5. 38. 38.Shim SY, Yun JY, Cho SJ, et al. The Prediction of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia in Very Low Birth Weight Infants through Clinical Indicators within 1 Hour of Delivery. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2021;36(11):12. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e81s [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e81s&link_type=DOI) 39. 39.Ushida T, Moriyama Y, Nakatochi M, et al. Antenatal prediction models for short- and medium-term outcomes in preterm infants. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2021 doi: 10.1111/aogs.14136 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/aogs.14136&link_type=DOI) 40. 40.Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006;26(6):565–74. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06295361 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0272989X06295361&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17099194&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F07%2F19%2F2022.07.19.22277664.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000242172200001&link_type=ISI)