4.7 Article

Developing a prediction rule from automated clinical databases to identify high-risk patients in a large population with diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 24, 期 9, 页码 1547-1555

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.9.1547

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To develop and validate a prediction rule for identifying diabetic patients at high short-term risk of complications using automated data in a large managed care organization. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Retrospective cohort analyses were performed in 57,722 diabetic members of Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, aged greater than or equal to 19 years, Data from 1994 to 1995 were used to model risk for macro- and microvascular complications (n = 3,977), infectious complications (n = 1,580), and metabolic complications (n = 316) during 1996, Candidate predictors (n = 36) included prior inpatient and outpatient diagnoses, laboratory records, pharmacy records, utilization records, and survey data. Using split-sample validation, the risk scores derived from logistic regression models in half of the population were evaluated in the second half. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and receiver operating characteristics curves were used to compare scores obtained from full models to those derived using simpler approaches. RESULTS - History of prior complications or related outpatient diagnoses were the strongest predictors in each complications set. For patients without previous events, treatment with insulin alone, serum creatinine - greater than or equal to 13 mg/dl, use of two or more antihypertensive medications, HbA(1c) > 10%, and albuminuria/microalbuminuria were independent predictors of two or all three complications. Several risk scores derived from multivariate models were more efficient than simply targeting patients with elevated HbA(1c) levels for identifying high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS - Simple prediction rules based on automated clinical data are useful in planning care management for populations with diabetes.

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

4.7
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