Dataset Information

A systematic review of methodology used in the development of prediction models for future asthma exacerbation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Clinical prediction models are widely used to guide medical advice and therapeutic interventions. Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases globally and is characterised by acute deteriorations. These exacerbations are largely preventable, so there is interest in using clinical prediction models in this area. The objective of this review was to identify studies which have developed such models, determine whether consistent and appropriate methodology was used and whether statistically reliable prognostic models exist. METHODS:We searched online databases MEDLINE (1948 onwards), CINAHL Plus (1937 onwards), The Cochrane Library, Web of Science (1898 onwards) and ClinicalTrials.gov, using index terms relating to asthma and prognosis. Data was extracted and assessment of quality was based on GRADE and an early version of PROBAST (Prediction study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). A meta-analysis of the discrimination and calibration measures was carried out to determine overall performance across models. RESULTS:Ten unique prognostic models were identified. GRADE identified moderate risk of bias in two of the studies, but more detailed quality assessment via PROBAST highlighted that most models were developed using highly selected and small datasets, incompletely recorded predictors and outcomes, and incomplete methodology. None of the identified models modelled recurrent exacerbations, instead favouring either presence/absence of an event, or time to first or specified event. Preferred methodologies were logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression. The overall pooled c-statistic was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.80), though individually some models performed no better than chance. The meta-analysis had an I2 value of 99.75% indicating a high amount of heterogeneity between studies. The majority of studies were small and did not include internal or external validation, therefore the individual performance measures are likely to be optimistic. CONCLUSIONS:Current prognostic models for asthma exacerbations are heterogeneous in methodology, but reported c-statistics suggest a clinically useful model could be created. Studies were consistent in lacking robust validation and in not modelling serial events. Further research is required with respect to incorporating recurrent events, and to externally validate tools in large representative populations to demonstrate the generalizability of published results.

SUBMITTER: Bridge J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7003428 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of methodology used in the development of prediction models for future asthma exacerbation.

Bridge Joshua J Blakey John D JD Bonnett Laura J LJ

BMC medical research methodology 20200205 1

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical prediction models are widely used to guide medical advice and therapeutic interventions. Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases globally and is characterised by acute deteriorations. These exacerbations are largely preventable, so there is interest in using clinical prediction models in this area. The objective of this review was to identify studies which have developed such models, determine whether consistent and appropriate methodology was used and wheth ...[more]

PMID: 32024484

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn an effort to improve both quality of care and cost-effectiveness, various care-management programmes have been developed for high-need high-cost (HNHC) patients. Early identification of patients at risk of becoming HNHC (i.e. case finding) is crucial to a programme's success. We aim to systematically identify prediction models predicting future HNHC healthcare use in adults, to describe their predictive performance and to assess their applicability.MethodsOvid MEDLINE® All, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through January 31, 2021. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment was performed through the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).ResultsOf 5890 studies, 60 studies met inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 313 unique models were presented using a median development cohort size of 20,248 patients (IQR 5601-174,242). Predictors were derived from a combination of data sources, most often claims data (n = 37; 62%) and patient survey data (n = 29; 48%). Most studies (n = 36; 60%) estimated patients' risk to become part of some top percentage of the cost distribution (top-1-20%) within a mean time horizon of 16 months (range 12-60). Five studies (8%) predicted HNHC persistence over multiple years. Model validation was performed in 45 studies (76%). Model performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination was reported in 14 studies (23%). Overall risk of bias was rated as 'high' in 40 studies (67%), mostly due to a 'high' risk of bias in the subdomain 'Analysis' (n = 37; 62%).DiscussionThis is the first systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020164734) of non-proprietary prognostic models predicting HNHC healthcare use. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Most identified models estimated a patient's risk to incur high healthcare expenditure during the subsequent year. However, case-finding strategies for HNHC care-management programmes are best informed by a model predicting HNHC persistence. Therefore, future studies should not only focus on validating and extending existing models, but also concentrate on clinical usefulness.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019. ELIGIBILITY:Studies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Relevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance. RESULTS:An initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21. CONCLUSION:Only a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.

Project description:BackgroundImproving accurate risk assessment of asthma exacerbations, and reduction via relevant behaviour change among people with asthma could save lives and reduce health care costs. We developed a simple personalised risk prediction model for asthma exacerbations using factors collected in routine healthcare data for use in a risk modelling feature for automated conversational systems.MethodsWe used pseudonymised primary care electronic healthcare records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database in England. We combined variables for prediction of asthma exacerbations using logistic regression including age, gender, ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation, geographical region and clinical variables related to asthma events.ResultsWe included 1,203,741 patients divided into three cohorts to implement temporal validation: 898,763 (74.7%) in the training sample, 226,754 (18.8%) in the testing sample and 78,224 (6.5%) in the validation sample. The Area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the full model was 0.72 and for the restricted model was 0.71. Using a cut-off point of 0.1, approximately 27 asthma reviews by clinicians per 100 patients would be prevented compared with a strategy that all patients are regarded as high risk. Compared with patients without an exacerbation, patients who exacerbated were older, more likely to be female, prescribed more SABA and ICS in the preceding 12 months, have history of GORD, COPD, anxiety, depression, live in very deprived areas and have more severe disease.ConclusionUsing information available from routinely collected electronic healthcare record data, we developed a model that has moderate ability to separate patients who had an asthma exacerbation within 3 months from their index date from patients who did not. When comparing this model with a simplified model with variables that can easily be self-reported through a WhatsApp chatbot, we have shown that the predictive performance of the model is not substantially different.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of methodology used in the development of prediction models for future asthma exacerbation.

Publications

A systematic review of methodology used in the development of prediction models for future asthma exacerbation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets