Dataset Information

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline and Embase until June 2013.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population.

Results

9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively.

Conclusions

There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

SUBMITTER: Damen JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4868251 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.

Damen Johanna A A G JA Hooft Lotty L Schuit Ewoud E Debray Thomas P A TP Collins Gary S GS Tzoulaki Ioanna I Lassale Camille M CM Siontis George C M GC Chiocchia Virginia V Roberts Corran C Schlüssel Michael Maia MM Gerry Stephen S Black James A JA Heus Pauline P van der Schouw Yvonne T YT Peelen Linda M LM Moons Karel G M KG

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20160516

<h4>Objective</h4> To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.<h4>Design</h4> Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4> Medline and Embase until June 2013.<h4>Eligibility criteria for study selection</h4> Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population.<h4>Results</h4> 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the revie ...[more]

PMID: 27184143

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in China, which represents the leading cause of mortality. Precise CVD risk identification is the fundamental prevention component. This study sought to systematically review the CVD risk prediction models derived and/or validated in the Chinese population to promote primary CVD prevention.MethodsReports were included if they derived or validated one or more CVD risk prediction models in the Chinese population. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, etc., were searched. The risk of bias was assessed with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Meta-analysis was performed in R using the package metamisc.ResultsFrom 55,183 records, 22 studies were included. Twelve studies derived 18 CVD risk prediction models, of which seven models were derived based on a multicentre cohort including more than two provinces of mainland China, and one was a model developed based on a New Zealand cohort including Chinese individuals. The number of predictors ranged from 6 to 22. The definitions of predicted outcomes showed considerable heterogeneity. Fourteen articles described 29 validations of 8 models. The Framingham model and pooled cohort equations (PCEs) are the most frequently validated foreign tools. Discrimination was acceptable and similar for men and women among models (0.60-0.83). The calibration estimates changed substantially from one population to another. Prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Risk in China (China-PAR) showed good calibration [observed/expected events ratio = 0.99, 95% PI (0.57,1.70)] and female sex [1.10, 95% PI (0.23,5.16)].ConclusionsSeveral models have been developed or validated in the Chinese population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear due to incomplete external validation and head-to-head comparison. Future research should focus on externally validating or tailoring these models to local settings.Trail registrationThis systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021277453).

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).Data sourcesBoth PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.Study selectionArticles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.Data extractionFor each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.ResultsThe median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.ConclusionsAmong prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergence delirium (ED) occurs in approximately 25% of paediatric general anaesthetics and has significant adverse effects. The goal of the current systematic review was to identify the existing literature investigating performance of predictive models for the development of paediatric ED following general anaesthesia and to determine their usability.DesignSystematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework.Data sourcesMedline (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses International through 17 November 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll randomised controlled trials and cohort studies investigating predictive models for the development of ED in children undergoing general anaesthesia.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing title, abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters, details of anaesthetics and performance characteristics of the predictive scores for ED. Evidence quality and predictive score usability were assessed according to the PROBAST framework.ResultsThe current systematic review yielded 9242 abstracts, of which only one study detailing the development and validation of the Emergence Agitation Risk Scale (EARS) met the inclusion criteria. EARS had good discrimination with c-index of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.89). Calibration showed a non-significant Homer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (p=0.97). Although the EARS demonstrated low concern of applicability, the high risk of bias compromised the overall usability of this model.ConclusionsThe current systematic review concluded that EARS has good discrimination performance but low usability to predict ED in a paediatric population. Further research is warranted to develop novel models for the prediction of ED in paediatric anaesthesia.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141950.

Project description:AimsOur aims were to evaluate the distribution of troponin I concentrations in population cohorts across Europe, to characterize the association with cardiovascular outcomes, to determine the predictive value beyond the variables used in the ESC SCORE, to test a potentially clinically relevant cut-off value, and to evaluate the improved eligibility for statin therapy based on elevated troponin I concentrations retrospectively.Methods and resultsBased on the Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) project, we analysed individual level data from 10 prospective population-based studies including 74 738 participants. We investigated the value of adding troponin I levels to conventional risk factors for prediction of cardiovascular disease by calculating measures of discrimination (C-index) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). We further tested the clinical implication of statin therapy based on troponin concentration in 12 956 individuals free of cardiovascular disease in the JUPITER study. Troponin I remained an independent predictor with a hazard ratio of 1.37 for cardiovascular mortality, 1.23 for cardiovascular disease, and 1.24 for total mortality. The addition of troponin I information to a prognostic model for cardiovascular death constructed of ESC SCORE variables increased the C-index discrimination measure by 0.007 and yielded an NRI of 0.048, whereas the addition to prognostic models for cardiovascular disease and total mortality led to lesser C-index discrimination and NRI increment. In individuals above 6 ng/L of troponin I, a concentration near the upper quintile in BiomarCaRE (5.9 ng/L) and JUPITER (5.8 ng/L), rosuvastatin therapy resulted in higher absolute risk reduction compared with individuals <6 ng/L of troponin I, whereas the relative risk reduction was similar.ConclusionIn individuals free of cardiovascular disease, the addition of troponin I to variables of established risk score improves prediction of cardiovascular death and cardiovascular disease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the currently available risk prediction models (RPMs) for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), diabetes and hypertension, and to compare their effectiveness in proper recognition of patients at risk of developing these diseases.DesignUmbrella systematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews or meta-analysis examining and comparing performances of RPMs for CVDs, hypertension or diabetes in healthy adult (18-65 years old) population, published in English language.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted according to the following parameters: number of studies included, intervention (RPMs applied/assessed), comparison, performance, validation and outcomes. A narrative synthesis was performed. Data were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Study selection3612 studies were identified. After title/abstract screening and removal of duplicate articles, 37 studies met the eligibility criteria. After reading the full text, 13 were deemed relevant for inclusion. Three further papers from the reference lists of these articles were then added.Study appraisalThe methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.Risk of bias in individual studiesRisk of Bias evaluation was carried out using the ROBIS tool.ResultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria: six focused on diabetes, two on hypertension and eight on CVDs. Globally, prediction models for diabetes and hypertension showed no significant difference in effectiveness. Conversely, some promising differences among prediction tools were highlighted for CVDs. The Ankle-Brachial Index, in association with the Framingham tool, and QRISK scores provided some evidence of a certain superiority compared with Framingham alone.LimitationsDue to the significant heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The electronic search was limited to studies in English and to three major international databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library), with additional works derived from the reference list of other studies; grey literature with unpublished documents was not included in the search. Furthermore, no assessment of potential adverse effects of RPMs was carried out.ConclusionsConsistent evidence is available only for CVD prediction: the Framingham score, alone or in combination with the Ankle-Brachial Index, and the QRISK score can be confirmed as the gold standard. Further efforts should not be concentrated on creating new scores, but rather on performing external validation of the existing ones, in particular on high-risk groups. Benefits could be further improved by supplementing existing models with information on lifestyle, personal habits, family and employment history, social network relationships, income and education.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088012.

Project description:ObjectivesTo look at the available literature on validated prediction models for contrast induced nephropathy and describe their characteristics.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and CINAHL (cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature) databases.Review methodsDatabases searched from inception to 2015, and the retrieved reference lists hand searched. Dual reviews were conducted to identify studies published in the English language of prediction models tested with patients that included derivation and validation cohorts. Data were extracted on baseline patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, modelling methods, metrics of model performance, risk of bias, and clinical usefulness. Eligible studies evaluated characteristics of predictive models that identified patients at risk of contrast induced nephropathy among adults undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure using conventional radiocontrast media (media used for computed tomography or angiography, and not gadolinium based contrast).Results16 studies were identified, describing 12 prediction models. Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was identified, as a result of different clinical settings, cointerventions, and the timing of creatinine measurement to define contrast induced nephropathy. Ten models were validated internally and six were validated externally. Discrimination varied in studies that were validated internally (C statistic 0.61-0.95) and externally (0.57-0.86). Only one study presented reclassification indices. The majority of higher performing models included measures of pre-existing chronic kidney disease, age, diabetes, heart failure or impaired ejection fraction, and hypotension or shock. No prediction model evaluated its effect on clinical decision making or patient outcomes.ConclusionsMost predictive models for contrast induced nephropathy in clinical use have modest ability, and are only relevant to patients receiving contrast for coronary angiography. Further research is needed to develop models that can better inform patient centred decision making, as well as improve the use of prevention strategies for contrast induced nephropathy.

Dataset Information

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets