基于临床预测的决策通常在整个医学和各个阶段做出pathways of health care. For example, in the diagnostic setting, predictions are made as to whether a particular disease is present informing the referral for further testing, initiate treatment or reassure patients that a serious cause for their symptoms is unlikely.

In the prognostic setting, predictions can be used for planning lifestyle or therapeutic decisions based on the risk of developing a particular outcome over a time period. Yet, making a diagnostic or prognostic prediction is challenging and rarely based on a单一风险因素, test result or symptom.

The multifactorial nature of making a临床预测, makes it difficult for doctors to simultaneously and subjectively weight multiple risk factors to produce a reliable and accurate estimate of risk. Furthermore, seeing relatively few cases and cognitive biases, it is unsurprising that numerous studies have shown that doctors are generally poor prognosticators.

但是，越来越多的医生通常基于国家临床指南中的建议，正在使用多变量预测模型来支持和指导临床决策过程。

A clinical prediction model is a mathematical equation that relates multiple predictors for an individual to the probability (or risk) that a particular disease or condition is present or will occur in the future. Well known prediction models include the弗雷明汉风险评分,Apgar Score,渥太华脚踝规则,Euroscore,Nottingham Prognostic Index和theSimplified Acute Physiology Score(SAPS).

Introducing the透明报告多变量预测模型的报告IndividualPrognosisOr诊断计划：三脚架声明

在过去的10 - 15年中，在描述了临床预测模型的发展（偶尔验证）的发表文章数量中发生了爆炸。特定的临床领域已经有了相同结果开发的大量模型（例如糖尿病,TBI,前列腺癌）。

开发预测模型可能非常容易；使用现有数据（用于不同目的）和统计软件包。显然，这是一个过于简化的，但是从愤世嫉俗的角度来看，许多预测模型都没有令人信服的临床需求，因此几乎没有被使用，并且只是一个容易添加到一个人的出版物curriculum vitae.

地区有许多模型被德veloped, deciding which one to use is difficult. Which is made particularly more difficult, as many are developed under the guise of being anew discoverywith existing models often ignored and很少比较against.

To evaluate the methodological conduct and reporting we conducted a number of systematic reviews describing the发展或者验证of multivariable prediction models across different医疗区域并发现报告特别贫穷。

当我们分析这些和其他系统评价的结果时令人惊讶的是，显然缺乏提出的重要信息。没有完整和透明的报告，评估，甚至实施和综合结果（请参阅CHARMS Checklist）从这种研究中是有问题的。

在最关键的层面上，作者正在开发模型，但未能提供有关实际模型的信息，以便其他研究人员无法使用该模型测试模型或对患者的使用 - 显然是荒谬的，以达到范围开发模型但无法告诉读者该模型是什么。未完成报告的发表文章是无法使用的 - 如最近所述柳叶刀系列减少浪费research.

It was clear to us that authors, reviewers, editors and readers needed clear guidance on what issues should be included when describing the development and validation of a prediction model, which led us to develop the TRIPOD Statement.

The TRIPOD Statement is an annotatedchecklist来自对文献的系统评价产生的项目，在讨论中，该项目进一步降低和完善了。3-day consensus meetingin 2011 with international experts in prediction modelling (statisticians, epidemiologists, clinicians and journal editors).

由此产生的清单包括22个项目，这些项目对于良好的研究报告至关重要developing或者证实multivariable prediction models. Authors of published reports of studies describing the development, validation or updating of a prediction model should ensure that all items in the checklist are mentioned somewhere in the article.

三脚架中的建议仅是报告研究的准则，并且不开处方如何开发或验证预测模型。此外，清单不是评估多变量预测模型质量的质量评估工具，即将到来PROBAST risk of bias工具将可用。

Many prediction models are (unfortunately) developed without involving either a statistician or epidemiologist, and therefore providing guidance that can be readily understood by study investigators of varying levels of technical (e.g. methodological) experience was of paramount importance.

此外，为了激励作者（也是同行评审者和编辑）使用清单，我们还旨在使清单尽可能简短，同时确保清楚地报告所有关键细节。

Whilst the TRIPOD Statement is foremost a guidance for reporting, we produced an accompanying and extensive 22,000 wordExplanation & Elaborationarticle discussing not only rationale and example of good reporting but also methodological aspects for investigators to consider when developing, validating or updating a prediction model.

然而，我们在提供适当方法论的此类信息方面面临的挑战之一就是提供竞争方法的平衡记录，尤其是在开发或验证预测模型的许多方面尚无明确的共识，以及该领域的方法论。正在不断发展。

通过描述各种方法的优势和缺点，提出有意识的努力是中立的，警告不要在没有决定研究研究者如何进行研究的情况下对方法论薄弱的方法进行警告。

To increase the visibility of the TRIPOD Statement we are co-publishing the article simultaneously in 11 leading general medical and specialty journals including the内科年鉴,BJOG,BMC Medicine,British Journal of Cancer,英国外科杂志,英国医学杂志,Circulation,Diabetic Medicine,European Journal of Clinical Investigation,欧洲泌尿科和the临床流行病学杂志.

We welcome other journals inendorsing TRIPOD，通过将预测模型研究作为一种独特的研究类型，在其作者的指示中包括三脚架，并要求作者在提交中完成并提交三脚架清单。

我们还开发了一个网站（www.tripod-statement.org）如果可以下载清单的其他信息，参考，PDF和单词版本。JORENALS和组织认可三脚架将在三脚架网站上列出。有关有关三脚架相关信息的公告，请在Twitter上关注我们@TRIPODStatement.

TheCentre for Statistics in Medicine(University of Oxford), also home of the赤道网络will list TRIPOD among their list of key reporting guidelines, and will be announced via the EQUATOR Newsletter, an EQUATOR blog along with social media twitter (@EQUATORNetwork）。

我们认为，如果作者遵守三脚架声明，那么（模型的）读者和潜在用户将对预测模型研究的各个方面有一个透明而充分的描述，从而使他们能够批评并完全判断该模型的潜在优点。

加里·柯林斯代表TRIPOD steering committee(Gary Collins和道格·奥特曼（Doug Altman）, University of Oxford, UK;卡雷尔月亮和汉斯·雷特玛（Hans Reitsma），UMC Utrecht，荷兰）