Article Text

Download PDFPDF
In reply to: ‘Use TRIPOD when validating clinical prediction models’
  1. Michiel Schinkel1,
  2. Frits Holleman2
  1. 1 Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Michiel Schinkel, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands; m.schinkel{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We thank Candel and Nissen for their interest1 in our recently published article on triage systems in the Netherlands.2 These authors discuss many difficulties inherent to ED triage and disagree with our conclusions that the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) could be used instead of the Netherlands Triage System (NTS) to triage patients.

First, Candel and Nissen suggest that we could have strengthened our methods by following the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. We agree that TRIPOD provides excellent guidance, but, as suggested by the Emergency Medicine Journal’s author guidelines, we opted to follow the Standards for Reporting …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Ellen J Weber

  • Twitter @SchinkelMichiel

  • Contributors MS and FH drafted the manuscript together and both approved of the final version to be submitted.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles