4.3 Article

Clinical Prediction Models for Cardiovascular Disease Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Prediction Model Database

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.001693

关键词

cardiovascular diseases; cerebrovascular disorders; individualized medicine; logistic models; prognosis

资金

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Pilot Project Program Award [IP2PI000722]
  2. National Institutes of Health [U01NS086294, T32HL069770, UL1 TR001064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Clinical prediction models (CPMs) estimate the probability of clinical outcomes and hold the potential to improve decision making and individualize care. For patients with cardiovascular disease, there are numerous CPMs available although the extent of this literature is not well described. Methods and Results We conducted a systematic review for articles containing CPMs for cardiovascular disease published between January 1990 and May 2012. Cardiovascular disease includes coronary heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral vascular disease. We created a novel database and characterized CPMs based on the stage of development, population under study, performance, covariates, and predicted outcomes. There are 796 models included in this database. The number of CPMs published each year is increasing steadily over time. Seven hundred seventeen (90%) are de novo CPMs, 21 (3%) are CPM recalibrations, and 58 (7%) are CPM adaptations. This database contains CPMs for 31 index conditions, including 215 CPMs for patients with coronary artery disease, 168 CPMs for population samples, and 79 models for patients with heart failure. There are 77 distinct index/outcome pairings. Of the de novo models in this database, 450 (63%) report a c-statistic and 259 (36%) report some information on calibration. Conclusions There is an abundance of CPMs available for a wide assortment of cardiovascular disease conditions, with substantial redundancy in the literature. The comparative performance of these models, the consistency of effects and risk estimates across models and the actual and potential clinical impact of this body of literature is poorly understood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据