Dataset Information

Performance of prediction models for nephropathy in people with type 2 diabetes: systematic review and external validation study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To 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.

Design

Systematic review and external validation.

Data sources

PubMed and Embase.

Eligibility criteria

Studies describing the development of a model to predict the risk of nephropathy, applicable to people with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Screening, 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).

Results

41 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.

Conclusions

This 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 registration

PROSPERO CRD42020192831.

SUBMITTER: Slieker RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with intermediate hyperglycemia (IH), including impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance, are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) than those with normoglycemia. We aimed to evaluate the performance of published T2D risk prediction models in Chinese people with IH to inform them about the choice of primary diabetes prevention measures.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify Asian-derived T2D risk prediction models, which were eligible if they were built on a prospective cohort of Asian adults without diabetes at baseline and utilized routinely-available variables to predict future risk of T2D. These Asian-derived and five prespecified non-Asian derived T2D risk prediction models were divided into BASIC (clinical variables only) and EXTENDED (plus laboratory variables) versions, with validation performed on them in three prospective Chinese IH cohorts: ACE (n = 3241), Luzhou (n = 1333), and TCLSIH (n = 1702). Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test).ResultsForty-four Asian and five non-Asian studies comprising 21 BASIC and 46 EXTENDED T2D risk prediction models for validation were identified. The majority were at high (n = 43, 87.8%) or unclear (n = 3, 6.1%) risk of bias, while only three studies (6.1%) were scored at low risk of bias. BASIC models showed poor-to-moderate discrimination with C-statistics 0.52-0.60, 0.50-0.59, and 0.50-0.64 in the ACE, Luzhou, and TCLSIH cohorts respectively. EXTENDED models showed poor-to-acceptable discrimination with C-statistics 0.54-0.73, 0.52-0.67, and 0.59-0.78 respectively. Fifteen BASIC and 40 EXTENDED models showed poor calibration (P < 0.05), overpredicting or underestimating the observed diabetes risk. Most recalibrated models showed improved calibration but modestly-to-severely overestimated diabetes risk in the three cohorts. The NAVIGATOR model showed the best discrimination in the three cohorts but had poor calibration (P < 0.05).ConclusionsIn Chinese people with IH, previously published BASIC models to predict T2D did not exhibit good discrimination or calibration. Several EXTENDED models performed better, but a robust Chinese T2D risk prediction tool in people with IH remains a major unmet need.

Project description:AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:The aims of this study were to identify all published prognostic models predicting retinopathy risk applicable to people with type 2 diabetes, to assess their quality and accuracy, and to validate their predictive accuracy in a head-to-head comparison using an independent type 2 diabetes cohort. METHODS:A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase in December 2019. Studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) the model was applicable in type 2 diabetes; (2) the outcome was retinopathy; and (3) follow-up was more than 1 year. Screening, data extraction (using the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systemic reviews of prediction modelling studies [CHARMS]) and risk of bias assessment (by prediction model risk of bias assessment tool [PROBAST]) were performed independently by two reviewers. Selected models were externally validated in the large Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort in the Netherlands. Retinopathy risk was calculated using baseline data and compared with retinopathy incidence over 5 years. Calibration after intercept adjustment and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic) were assessed. RESULTS:Twelve studies were included in the systematic review, reporting on 16 models. Outcomes ranged from referable retinopathy to blindness. Discrimination was reported in seven studies with C statistics ranging from 0.55 (95% CI 0.54, 0.56) to 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.88). Five studies reported on calibration. Eight models could be compared head-to-head in the DCS cohort (N?=?10,715). Most of the models underestimated retinopathy risk. Validating the models against different severities of retinopathy, C statistics ranged from 0.51 (95% CI 0.49, 0.53) to 0.89 (95% CI 0.88, 0.91). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:Several prognostic models can accurately predict retinopathy risk in a population-based type 2 diabetes cohort. Most of the models include easy-to-measure predictors enhancing their applicability. Tailoring retinopathy screening frequency based on accurate risk predictions may increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy care. REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration ID CRD42018089122.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort.Data sourcesSystematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabetes.DesignPerformance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination (C statistic) and calibration (calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test).The validation study was a prospective cohort study, with a case cohort study in a random subcohort.SettingModels were applied to the Dutch cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort study (EPIC-NL).Participants38,379 people aged 20-70 with no diabetes at baseline, 2506 of whom made up the random subcohort.Outcome measureIncident type 2 diabetes.ResultsThe review identified 16 studies containing 25 prediction models. We considered 12 models as basic because they were based on variables that can be assessed non-invasively and 13 models as extended because they additionally included conventional biomarkers such as glucose concentration. During a median follow-up of 10.2 years there were 924 cases in the full EPIC-NL cohort and 79 in the random subcohort. The C statistic for the basic models ranged from 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.75) to 0.84 (0.82 to 0.85) for risk at 7.5 years. For prediction models including biomarkers the C statistic ranged from 0.81 (0.80 to 0.83) to 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94). Most prediction models overestimated the observed risk of diabetes, particularly at higher observed risks. After adjustment for differences in incidence of diabetes, calibration improved considerably.ConclusionsMost basic prediction models can identify people at high risk of developing diabetes in a time frame of five to 10 years. Models including biomarkers classified cases slightly better than basic ones. Most models overestimated the actual risk of diabetes. Existing prediction models therefore perform well to identify those at high risk, but cannot sufficiently quantify actual risk of future diabetes.

Project description:IntroductionExternal validation studies are essential to study the generalizability of prediction models. Recently a permutation test, focusing on discrimination as quantified by the c-statistic, was proposed to judge whether a prediction model is transportable to a new setting. We aimed to evaluate this test and compare it to previously proposed procedures to judge any changes in c-statistic from development to external validation setting.MethodsWe compared the use of the permutation test to the use of benchmark values of the c-statistic following from a previously proposed framework to judge transportability of a prediction model. In a simulation study we developed a prediction model with logistic regression on a development set and validated them in the validation set. We concentrated on two scenarios: 1) the case-mix was more heterogeneous and predictor effects were weaker in the validation set compared to the development set, and 2) the case-mix was less heterogeneous in the validation set and predictor effects were identical in the validation and development set. Furthermore we illustrated the methods in a case study using 15 datasets of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury.ResultsThe permutation test indicated that the validation and development set were homogenous in scenario 1 (in almost all simulated samples) and heterogeneous in scenario 2 (in 17%-39% of simulated samples). Previously proposed benchmark values of the c-statistic and the standard deviation of the linear predictors correctly pointed at the more heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 1 and the less heterogeneous case-mix in scenario 2.ConclusionThe recently proposed permutation test may provide misleading results when externally validating prediction models in the presence of case-mix differences between the development and validation population. To correctly interpret the c-statistic found at external validation it is crucial to disentangle case-mix differences from incorrect regression coefficients.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe International IgA Nephropathy Network recently developed and externally validated two models to predict the risk of progression of IgA nephropathy: full models without and with race. This study sought to externally validate the International IgA Nephropathy Prediction Tool in a large, independent, and contemporary cohort in China.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe included 1373 patients with biopsy-confirmed primary IgA nephropathy from The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2012 to May 2018 and calculated predicted risks for each patient. The outcomes of interest were a 50% decline in eGFR or kidney failure. We assessed the performance of both models using discrimination (concordance statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves between subgroups), calibration (calibration plots), reclassification (net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement), and clinical utility (decision curve analysis).ResultsThe median follow-up was 29 months (interquartile range, 21-43 months; range, 1-95 months), and 186 (14%) patients reached the kidney outcomes of interest. Both models showed excellent discrimination (concordance statistics >0.85 and well separated survival curves). Overall, the full model without race generally underestimated the risk of primary outcome, whereas the full model with race was well calibrated for predicting 5-year risk. Compared with the full model without race, the full model with race had significant improvement in reclassification, as assessed by the net reclassification improvement (0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.59) and integrated discrimination improvement (0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.08). Decision curve analysis showed that both full models had a higher net benefit than default strategies, and the model with race performed better.ConclusionsIn this study, both full models demonstrated remarkable discrimination, acceptable calibration, and satisfactory clinical utility. The relatively short follow-up time may have limited the validation of these models.

Project description:BackgroundBefore considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.Results11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.ConclusionsThe vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.