Recent development of risk-prediction models for incident hypertension: An updated systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
Methods: Both PubMed and Embase databases were searched for eligible reports of either prediction models or risk scores of hypertension. The study data were collected, including risk factors, statistic methods, characteristics of study design and participants, performance measurement, etc.
Results: From the searched literature, 26 studies reporting 48 prediction models were selected. Among them, 20 reports studied the established models using traditional risk factors, such as body mass index (BMI), age, smoking, blood pressure (BP) level, parental history of hypertension, and biochemical factors, whereas 6 reports used genetic risk score (GRS) as the prediction factor. AUC ranged from 0.64 to 0.97, and C-statistic ranged from 60% to 90%.
Conclusions: The traditional models are still the predominant risk prediction models for hypertension, but recently, more models have begun to incorporate genetic factors as part of their model predictors. However, these genetic predictors need to be well selected. The current reported models have acceptable to good discrimination and calibration ability, but whether the models can be applied in clinical practice still needs more validation and adjustment.
SUBMITTER: Sun D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5662179 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Recent development of risk-prediction models for incident hypertension: An updated systematic review.
Sun Dongdong D Liu Jielin J Xiao Lei L Liu Ya Y Wang Zuoguang Z Li Chuang C Jin Yongxin Y Zhao Qiong Q Wen Shaojun S
PloS one 20171030 10
<h4>Background</h4>Hypertension is a leading global health threat and a major cardiovascular disease. Since clinical interventions are effective in delaying the disease progression from prehypertension to hypertension, diagnostic prediction models to identify patient populations at high risk for hypertension are imperative.<h4>Methods</h4>Both PubMed and Embase databases were searched for eligible reports of either prediction models or risk scores of hypertension. The study data were collected, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Early treatment may alter progression to overt heart failure (HF) in asymptomatic individuals with stage B HF (SBHF). However, the identification of patients with SBHF is difficult. This systematic review sought to examine the strength of association of clinical factors with incident HF, with the intention of facilitating selection for HF screening. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for studies reporting risk factors for incident HF. Effect sizes, typically HRs, of each risk variable were extracted. Pooled crude and adjusted HRs with 95% CIs were computed for each risk variable using a random-effects model weighted by inverse variance. RESULTS: Twenty-seven clinical factors were identified to be associated with risk of incident HF in 15 observational studies in unselected community populations which followed 456 850 participants over 4-29 years. The strongest independent associations for incident HF were coronary artery disease (HR=2.94; 95% CI 1.36 to 6.33), diabetes mellitus (HR=2.00; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.38), age (HR (per 10 years)=1.80; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.87) followed by hypertension (HR=1.61; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.96), smoking (HR=1.60; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.77), male gender (HR=1.52; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.87) and body mass index (HR (per 5 kg/m(2))=1.15; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25). Atrial fibrillation (HR=1.88; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.21), left ventricular hypertrophy (HR=2.46; 95% CI 1.71 to 3.53) and valvular heart disease (HR=1.74; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.84) were also strongly associated with incident HF but were not examined in sufficient papers to provide pooled hazard estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of incident HF can be calculated from seven common clinical variables. The risk associated with these may guide strategies for the identification of high-risk people who may benefit from further evaluation and intervention.
| S-EPMC4395833 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAs well as being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension is also a health condition in its own right. Risk prediction models may be of value in identifying those individuals at risk of developing hypertension who are likely to benefit most from interventions.Methods and findingsTo synthesize existing evidence on the performance of these models, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE; examined bibliographies of retrieved articles; contacted experts in the field; and searched our own files. Dual review of identified studies was conducted. Included studies had to report on the development, validation, or impact analysis of a hypertension risk prediction model. For each publication, information was extracted on study design and characteristics, predictors, model discrimination, calibration and reclassification ability, validation and impact analysis. Eleven studies reporting on 15 different hypertension prediction risk models were identified. Age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, and blood pressure variables were the most common predictor variables included in models. Most risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory ability (C-statistic>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall acceptable. Two hypertension risk models, the Framingham and Hopkins, have been externally validated, displaying acceptable-to-good discrimination, and C-statistic ranging from 0.71 to 0.81. Lack of individual-level data precluded analyses of the risk models in subgroups.ConclusionsThe discrimination ability of existing hypertension risk prediction tools is acceptable, but the impact of using these tools on prescriptions and outcomes of hypertension prevention is unclear.
| S-EPMC3702558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrediction models for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia have been developed with data and assumptions from developed countries. Their suitability and application for low resource settings have not been tested. This review aimed to identify and assess the methodological quality of prediction models for gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia with reference to their application in low resource settings.MethodsUsing combinations of keywords for gestational hypertension, preeclampsia and prediction models seven databases were searched to identify prediction models developed with maternal data obtained before 20 weeks of pregnancy and including at least three predictors (Prospero registration CRD 42017078786). Prediction model characteristics and performance measures were extracted using the CHARMS, STROBE and TRIPOD checklists. The National Institute of Health quality assessment tools for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies were used for study quality appraisal.ResultsWe retrieved 8,309 articles out of which 40 articles were eligible for review. Seventy-seven percent of all the prediction models combined biomarkers with maternal clinical characteristics. Biomarkers used as predictors in most models were pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and placental growth factor (PlGF). Only five studies were conducted in a low-and middle income country.ConclusionsMost of the studies evaluated did not completely follow the CHARMS, TRIPOD and STROBE guidelines in prediction model development and reporting. Adherence to these guidelines will improve prediction modelling studies and subsequent application of prediction models in clinical practice. Prediction models using maternal characteristics, with good discrimination and calibration, should be externally validated for use in low and middle income countries where biomarker assays are not routinely available.
| S-EPMC7173928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccurate identification of individuals at high risk of dementia influences clinical care, inclusion criteria for clinical trials and development of preventative strategies. Numerous models have been developed for predicting dementia. To evaluate these models we undertook a systematic review in 2010 and updated this in 2014 due to the increase in research published in this area. Here we include a critique of the variables selected for inclusion and an assessment of model prognostic performance.MethodsOur previous systematic review was updated with a search from January 2009 to March 2014 in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science). Articles examining risk of dementia in non-demented individuals and including measures of sensitivity, specificity or the area under the curve (AUC) or c-statistic were included.FindingsIn total, 1,234 articles were identified from the search; 21 articles met inclusion criteria. New developments in dementia risk prediction include the testing of non-APOE genes, use of non-traditional dementia risk factors, incorporation of diet, physical function and ethnicity, and model development in specific subgroups of the population including individuals with diabetes and those with different educational levels. Four models have been externally validated. Three studies considered time or cost implications of computing the model.InterpretationThere is no one model that is recommended for dementia risk prediction in population-based settings. Further, it is unlikely that one model will fit all. Consideration of the optimal features of new models should focus on methodology (setting/sample, model development and testing in a replication cohort) and the acceptability and cost of attaining the risk variables included in the prediction score. Further work is required to validate existing models or develop new ones in different populations as well as determine the ethical implications of dementia risk prediction, before applying the particular models in population or clinical settings.
| S-EPMC4559315 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6937066 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4784870 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8642244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Survival is strongly related to stage at diagnosis and population-based screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Stratifying the population by risk offers the potential to improve the efficiency of screening. In this systematic review we searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict future risk of primary colorectal cancer for asymptomatic individuals. A total of 12,808 papers were identified from the literature search and nine through citation searching. Fifty-two risk models were included. Where reported (n = 37), half the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC >0.7) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed (n = 21), but overall acceptable. In external validation studies, 10 models showed acceptable discrimination (AUROC 0.71-0.78). These include two with only three variables (age, gender, and BMI; age, gender, and family history of colorectal cancer). A small number of prediction models developed from case-control studies of genetic biomarkers also show some promise but require further external validation using population-based samples. Further research should focus on the feasibility and impact of incorporating such models into stratified screening programmes.
| S-EPMC7610622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the last 30 years, there has been an increasing incidence of oral cancer worldwide. Earlier detection of oral cancer has been shown to improve survival rates. However, given the relatively low prevalence of this disease, population-wide screening is likely to be inefficient. Risk prediction models could be used to target screening to those at highest risk or to select individuals for preventative interventions. This review (a) systematically identified published models that predict the development of oral cancer and are suitable for use in the general population and (b) described and compared the identified models, focusing on their development, including risk factors, performance and applicability to risk-stratified screening. A search was carried out in November 2022 in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify primary research papers that report the development or validation of models predicting the risk of developing oral cancer (cancers of the oral cavity or oropharynx). The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the identified studies and the applicability of the models they describe. The search identified 11,222 articles, of which 14 studies (describing 23 models), satisfied the eligibility criteria of this review. The most commonly included risk factors were age (n = 20), alcohol consumption (n = 18) and smoking (n = 17). Six of the included models incorporated genetic information and three used biomarkers as predictors. Including information on human papillomavirus status was shown to improve model performance; however, this was only included in a small number of models. Most of the identified models (n = 13) showed good or excellent discrimination (AUROC > 0.7). Only fourteen models had been validated and only two of these validations were carried out in populations distinct from the model development population (external validation). Conclusions: Several risk prediction models have been identified that could be used to identify individuals at the highest risk of oral cancer within the context of screening programmes. However, external validation of these models in the target population is required, and, subsequently, an assessment of the feasibility of implementation with a risk-stratified screening programme for oral cancer.
| S-EPMC10854942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early identification of people at risk of developing COPD is crucial for implementing preventive strategies. We aimed to systematically review and assess the performance of all published models that predicted development of COPD. A search was conducted to identify studies that developed a prediction model for COPD development. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies was followed when extracting data and appraising the selected studies. Of the 4,481 records identified, 30 articles were selected for full-text review, and only four of these were eligible to be included in the review. The only consistent predictor across all four models was a measure of smoking. Sex and age were used in most models; however, other factors varied widely. Two of the models had good ability to discriminate between people who were correctly or incorrectly classified as at risk of developing COPD. Overall none of the models were particularly useful in accurately predicting future risk of COPD, nor were they good at ruling out future risk of COPD. Further studies are needed to develop new prediction models and robustly validate them in external cohorts.
| S-EPMC6005295 | biostudies-literature