Dataset Information

Broad external validation of a multivariable risk prediction model for gastrointestinal malignancy in iron deficiency anaemia.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Using two large datasets from Dorset, we previously reported an internally validated multivariable risk model for predicting the risk of GI malignancy in IDA-the IDIOM score. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to validate the IDIOM model using two independent external datasets. METHODS:The external validation datasets were collected, in a secondary care setting, by different investigators from cohorts in Oxford and Sheffield derived under different circumstances, comprising 1117 and 474 patients with confirmed IDA respectively. The data were anonymised prior to analysis. The predictive performance of the original model was evaluated by estimating measures of calibration, discrimination and clinical utility using the validation datasets. RESULTS:The discrimination of the original model using the external validation data was 70% (95% CI 65, 75) for the Oxford dataset and 70% (95% CI 61, 79) for the Sheffield dataset. The analysis of mean, weak, flexible and across the risk groups' calibration showed no tendency for under or over-estimated risks in the combined validation data. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the clinical value of the IDIOM model with a net benefit that is higher than 'investigate all' and 'investigate no-one' strategies up to a threshold of 18% in the combined validation data, using a risk cut-off of around 1.2% to categorise patients into the very low risk group showed that none of the patients stratified in this risk group proved to have GI cancer on investigation in the validation datasets. CONCLUSION:This external validation exercise has shown promising results for the IDIOM model in predicting the risk of underlying GI malignancy in independent IDA datasets collected in different clinical settings.

SUBMITTER: Almilaji O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8672477 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundRecent data imply young patients (age ≤50 years) undergoing small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) for iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) show higher diagnostic yield (DY) for sinister pathology. We aimed to investigate DY of CE in a large cohort of young IDA patients, and evaluate factors predicting significant SB pathology.Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective, multicentre study (2010-2015) in consecutive, young patients (≤50 years) from 18 centres/12 countries, with negative bidirectional gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy undergoing SBCE for IDA. Exclusion criteria: previous/ongoing obscure-overt GI bleeding; age <19 or >50 years; comorbidities associated with IDA. Data retrieved: SBCE indications; prior investigations; medications; SBCE findings; final diagnosis. Clinical and laboratory data were analysed by multivariate logistic regression.ResultsData on 389 young IDA patients were retrieved. In total, 169 (43.4%) were excluded due to incomplete clinical data; data from 220 (122F/98M; mean age 40.5 ± 8.6 years) patients were analysed. Some 71 patients had at least one clinically significant SBCE finding (DY: 32.3%). They were divided into two groups: neoplastic pathology (10/220; 4.5%), and non-neoplastic but clinically significant pathology (61/220; 27.7%). The most common significant but non-neoplastic pathologies were angioectasias (22/61) and Crohn's disease (15/61). On multivariate analysis, weight loss and lower mean corpuscular volume(MCV) were associated with significant SB pathology (OR: 3.87; 95%CI: 1.3-11.3; p = 0.01; and OR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.92-0.99; p = 0.03; respectively). Our model also demonstrates association between use of antiplatelets and significant SB pathology, although due to the small number of patients, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn.ConclusionIn IDA patients ≤50 years with negative bidirectional GI endoscopy, overall DY of SBCE for clinically significant findings was 32.3%. Some 5% of our cohort was diagnosed with SB neoplasia; lower MCV or weight loss were associated with higher DY for SB pathology.

Dataset Information

Broad external validation of a multivariable risk prediction model for gastrointestinal malignancy in iron deficiency anaemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets