4.4 Article

A cardiovascular disease risk prediction algorithm for use with the Medicare current beneficiary survey

期刊

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 568-577

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13290

关键词

cardiovascular diseases; health policy; health risk assessment; proportional hazards models; survey methods

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [UL1RR031982]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To develop a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score that can be used to quantify CVD risk in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). Data Sources We used 1999-2013 MCBS data. Study Design We used a backward stepwise approach and cox proportional hazards regressions to build and validate a new CVD risk score, similar to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), using only information available in MCBS. To assess its performance, we calculated C statistics and examined calibration plots. Data Collection/Extraction Methods We studied 21 968 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older without pre-existing CVD. We obtained risk factors from both survey and claims data. We used claims data to derive CVD event within 3 years following the FRS definition of CVD. Principal Findings About five percent of MCBS participants developed a CVD event over a mean follow-up period of 348 days. Our final MCBS-based model added morbidity burden, reported general health status, and functional limitation to the traditional FRS predictors of CVD. This model had relatively fair discrimination (C statistic = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.71) and performed well on validation (C = 0.68; CI, 0.66-0.70). More importantly, the plot of observed CVD outcomes versus predicted ones showed that this model had a good calibration. Conclusions Our new CVD risk score can be calculated using MCBS data, thereby extending the survey's ability to quantify CVD risk in the Medicare population and better inform both health policy and health services research.

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

4.4
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