Dataset Information

Prognostic models for predicting the risk of foot ulcer or amputation in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and external validation study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims/hypothesis

Approximately 25% of people with type 2 diabetes experience a foot ulcer and their risk of amputation is 10-20 times higher than that of people without type 2 diabetes. Prognostic models can aid in targeted monitoring but an overview of their performance is lacking. This study aimed to systematically review prognostic models for the risk of foot ulcer or amputation and quantify their predictive performance in an independent cohort.

Methods

A systematic review identified studies developing prognostic models for foot ulcer or amputation over minimal 1 year follow-up applicable to people with type 2 diabetes. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment (both in duplicate), selected models were externally validated in a prospective cohort with a 5 year follow-up in terms of discrimination (C statistics) and calibration (calibration plots).

Results

We identified 21 studies with 34 models predicting polyneuropathy, foot ulcer or amputation. Eleven models were validated in 7624 participants, of whom 485 developed an ulcer and 70 underwent amputation. The models for foot ulcer showed C statistics (95% CI) ranging from 0.54 (0.54, 0.54) to 0.81 (0.75, 0.86) and models for amputation showed C statistics (95% CI) ranging from 0.63 (0.55, 0.71) to 0.86 (0.78, 0.94). Most models underestimated the ulcer or amputation risk in the highest risk quintiles. Three models performed well to predict a combined endpoint of amputation and foot ulcer (C statistics >0.75).

Conclusions/interpretation

Thirty-four prognostic models for the risk of foot ulcer or amputation were identified. Although the performance of the models varied considerably, three models performed well to predict foot ulcer or amputation and may be applicable to clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Beulens JWJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8075833 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral prognostic models for outcomes after chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) treatment have been published in recent years. However, these models are not sufficiently validated for use in daily clinical practice. We aimed to assess the performance of existing prediction models for outcomes in patients diagnosed with CSDH.MethodsWe systematically searched relevant literature databases up to February 2021 to identify prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients diagnosed with CSDH. For the external validation of prognostic models, we used a retrospective database, containing data of 2384 patients from three Dutch regions. Prognostic models were included if they predicted either mortality, hematoma recurrence, functional outcome, or quality of life. Models were excluded when predictors were absent in our database or available for < 150 patients in our database. We assessed calibration, and discrimination (quantified by the concordance index C) of the included prognostic models in our retrospective database.ResultsWe identified 1680 original publications of which 1656 were excluded based on title or abstract, mostly because they did not concern CSDH or did not define a prognostic model. Out of 18 identified models, three could be externally validated in our retrospective database: a model for 30-day mortality in 1656 patients, a model for 2 months, and another for 3-month hematoma recurrence both in 1733 patients. The models overestimated the proportion of patients with these outcomes by 11% (15% predicted vs. 4% observed), 1% (10% vs. 9%), and 2% (11% vs. 9%), respectively. Their discriminative ability was poor to modest (C of 0.70 [0.63-0.77]; 0.46 [0.35-0.56]; 0.59 [0.51-0.66], respectively).ConclusionsNone of the examined models showed good predictive performance for outcomes after CSDH treatment in our dataset. This study confirms the difficulty in predicting outcomes after CSDH and emphasizes the heterogeneity of CSDH patients. The importance of developing high-quality models by using unified predictors and relevant outcome measures and appropriate modeling strategies is warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Early identification of women at risk during pregnancy is required to plan management. Although there are many published prediction models for pre-eclampsia, few have been validated in external data. Our objective was to externally validate published prediction models for pre-eclampsia using individual participant data (IPD) from UK studies, to evaluate whether any of the models can accurately predict the condition when used within the UK healthcare setting. METHODS:IPD from 11 UK cohort studies (217,415 pregnant women) within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) pre-eclampsia network contributed to external validation of published prediction models, identified by systematic review. Cohorts that measured all predictor variables in at least one of the identified models and reported pre-eclampsia as an outcome were included for validation. We reported the model predictive performance as discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (calibration plots, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large), and net benefit. Performance measures were estimated separately in each available study and then, where possible, combined across studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:Of 131 published models, 67 provided the full model equation and 24 could be validated in 11 UK cohorts. Most of the models showed modest discrimination with summary C-statistics between 0.6 and 0.7. The calibration of the predicted compared to observed risk was generally poor for most models with observed calibration slopes less than 1, indicating that predictions were generally too extreme, although confidence intervals were wide. There was large between-study heterogeneity in each model's calibration-in-the-large, suggesting poor calibration of the predicted overall risk across populations. In a subset of models, the net benefit of using the models to inform clinical decisions appeared small and limited to probability thresholds between 5 and 7%. CONCLUSIONS:The evaluated models had modest predictive performance, with key limitations such as poor calibration (likely due to overfitting in the original development datasets), substantial heterogeneity, and small net benefit across settings. The evidence to support the use of these prediction models for pre-eclampsia in clinical decision-making is limited. Any models that we could not validate should be examined in terms of their predictive performance, net benefit, and heterogeneity across multiple UK settings before consideration for use in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO ID: CRD42015029349 .

Project description:Aims/hypothesisHospital admissions for hypoglycaemia represent a significant burden on individuals with diabetes and have a substantial economic impact on healthcare systems. To date, no prognostic models have been developed to predict outcomes following admission for hypoglycaemia. We aimed to develop and validate prediction models to estimate risk of inpatient death, 24 h discharge and one month readmission in people admitted to hospital for hypoglycaemia.MethodsWe used the Hospital Episode Statistics database, which includes data on all hospital admission to National Health Service hospital trusts in England, to extract admissions for hypoglycaemia between 2010 and 2014. We developed, internally and temporally validated, and compared two prognostic risk models for each outcome. The first model included age, sex, ethnicity, region, social deprivation and Charlson score ('base' model). In the second model, we added to the 'base' model the 20 most common medical conditions and applied a stepwise backward selection of variables ('disease' model). We used C-index and calibration plots to assess model performance and developed a calculator to estimate probabilities of outcomes according to individual characteristics.ResultsIn derivation samples, 296 out of 11,136 admissions resulted in inpatient death, 1789/33,825 in one month readmission and 8396/33,803 in 24 h discharge. Corresponding values for validation samples were: 296/10,976, 1207/22,112 and 5363/22,107. The two models had similar discrimination. In derivation samples, C-indices for the base and disease models, respectively, were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.75, 0.80) and 0.78 (0.75, 0.80) for death, 0.57 (0.56, 0.59) and 0.57 (0.56, 0.58) for one month readmission, and 0.68 (0.67, 0.69) and 0.69 (0.68, 0.69) for 24 h discharge. Corresponding values in validation samples were: 0.74 (0.71, 0.76) and 0.74 (0.72, 0.77), 0.55 (0.54, 0.57) and 0.55 (0.53, 0.56), and 0.66 (0.65, 0.67) and 0.67 (0.66, 0.68). In both derivation and validation samples, calibration plots showed good agreement for the three outcomes. We developed a calculator of probabilities for inpatient death and 24 h discharge given the low performance of one month readmission models.Conclusions/interpretationThis simple and pragmatic tool to predict in-hospital death and 24 h discharge has the potential to reduce mortality and improve discharge in people admitted for hypoglycaemia.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and assess the quality and accuracy of prognostic models for nephropathy and to validate these models in external cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and external validation.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase.Eligibility criteriaStudies describing the development of a model to predict the risk of nephropathy, applicable to people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsScreening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Eligible models were externally validated in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort (n=11 450) for the same outcomes for which they were developed. Risks of nephropathy were calculated and compared with observed risk over 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Model performance was assessed based on intercept adjusted calibration and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic).Results41 studies included in the systematic review reported 64 models, 46 of which were developed in a population with diabetes and 18 in the general population including diabetes as a predictor. The predicted outcomes included albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease (general population), and end stage renal disease. The reported apparent discrimination of the 46 models varied considerably across the different predicted outcomes, from 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.64) to 0.99 (not available) for the models developed in a diabetes population and from 0.59 (not available) to 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) for the models developed in the general population. Calibration was reported in 31 of the 41 studies, and the models were generally well calibrated. 21 of the 64 retrieved models were externally validated in the Hoorn DCS cohort for predicting risk of albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease, with considerable variation in performance across prediction horizons and models. For all three outcomes, however, at least two models had C statistics >0.8, indicating excellent discrimination. In a secondary external validation in GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland), models developed for diabetic kidney disease outperformed those for chronic kidney disease. Models were generally well calibrated across all three prediction horizons.ConclusionsThis study identified multiple prediction models to predict albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. In the external validation, discrimination and calibration for albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease varied considerably across prediction horizons and models. For each outcome, however, specific models showed good discrimination and calibration across the three prediction horizons, with clinically accessible predictors, making them applicable in a clinical setting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020192831.