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: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:ContextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.ObjectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population.Evidence acquisitionA search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.Evidence synthesisThe search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.ConclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies.Patient summaryIn this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.

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.

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.

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