Search

Background While many clinical prediction models (CPMs) exist to guide valvular heart disease treatment decisions, the relative performance of these CPMs is largely unknown. We systematically describe the CPMs available for patients with valvular heart disease with specific attention to performance in external validations. Methods and Results A systematic review identified 49 CPMs for patients with valvular heart disease treated with surgery (n=34), percutaneous interventions (n=12), or no intervention (n=3). There were 204 external validations of these CPMs. Only 35 (71%) CPMs have been externally validated. Sixty-five percent (n=133) of the external validations were performed on distantly related populations. There was substantial heterogeneity in model performance and a median percentage change in discrimination of -27.1% (interquartile range, -49.4%--5.7%). Nearly two-thirds of validations (n=129) demonstrate at least a 10% relative decline in discrimination. Discriminatory performance of EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (2009) models (accounting for 73% of external validations) varied widely: EuroSCORE II validation c-statistic range 0.50 to 0.95; Society of Thoracic Surgeons (2009) Models validation c-statistic range 0.50 to 0.86. These models performed well when tested on related populations (median related validation c-statistics: EuroSCORE II, 0.82 [0.76, 0.85]; Society of Thoracic Surgeons [2009], 0.72 [0.67, 0.79]). There remain few (n=9) external validations of transcatheter aortic valve replacement CPMs. Conclusions Many CPMs for patients with valvular heart disease have never been externally validated and isolated external validations appear insufficient to assess the trustworthiness of predictions. For surgical valve interventions, there are existing predictive models that perform reasonably well on related populations. For transcatheter aortic valve replacement (CPMs additional external validations are needed to broadly understand the trustworthiness of predictions.

There is growing interest in developing clinical prediction models (CPMs) to aid local healthcare decision-making. Frequently, these CPMs are developed in isolation across different populations, with repetitive de novo derivation a common modelling strategy. However, this fails to utilise all available information and does not respond to changes in health processes through time and space. Alternatively, model updating techniques have previously been proposed that adjust an existing CPM to suit the new population, but these techniques are restricted to a single model. Therefore, we aimed to develop a generalised method for updating and aggregating multiple CPMs. The proposed "hybrid method" re-calibrates multiple CPMs using stacked regression while concurrently revising specific covariates using individual participant data (IPD) under a penalised likelihood. The performance of the hybrid method was compared with existing methods in a clinical example of mortality risk prediction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and in 2 simulation studies. The simulation studies explored the effect of sample size and between-population-heterogeneity on the method, with each representing a situation of having multiple distinct CPMs and 1 set of IPD. When the sample size of the IPD was small, stacked regression and the hybrid method had comparable but highest performance across modelling methods. Conversely, in large IPD samples, development of a new model and the hybrid method gave the highest performance. Hence, the proposed strategy can inform the choice between utilising existing CPMs or developing a model de novo, thereby incorporating IPD, existing research, and prior (clinical) knowledge into the modelling strategy., (© 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a prediction model for identifying employees at increased risk of long-term sickness absence (LTSA), by using variables commonly measured in occupational health surveys., Materials and Methods: Based on the literature, 15 predictor variables were retrieved from the DAnish National working Environment Survey (DANES) and included in a model predicting incident LTSA (≥4 consecutive weeks) during 1-year follow-up in a sample of 4000 DANES participants. The 15-predictor model was reduced by backward stepwise statistical techniques and then validated in a sample of 2524 DANES participants, not included in the development sample. Identification of employees at increased LTSA risk was investigated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis; the area-under-the-ROC-curve (AUC) reflected discrimination between employees with and without LTSA during follow-up., Results: The 15-predictor model was reduced to a 9-predictor model including age, gender, education, self-rated health, mental health, prior LTSA, work ability, emotional job demands, and recognition by the management. Discrimination by the 9-predictor model was significant (AUC = 0.68; 95% CI 0.61-0.76), but not practically useful., Conclusions: A prediction model based on occupational health survey variables identified employees with an increased LTSA risk, but should be further developed into a practically useful tool to predict the risk of LTSA in the general working population. Implications for rehabilitation Long-term sickness absence risk predictions would enable healthcare providers to refer high-risk employees to rehabilitation programs aimed at preventing or reducing work disability. A prediction model based on health survey variables discriminates between employees at high and low risk of long-term sickness absence, but discrimination was not practically useful. Health survey variables provide insufficient information to determine long-term sickness absence risk profiles. There is a need for new variables, based on the knowledge and experience of rehabilitation professionals, to improve long-term sickness absence risk profiles.

Predicting the occurrence of an adverse event over time is an important issue in clinical medicine. Clinical prediction models and associated points-based risk-scoring systems are popular statistical methods for summarizing the relationship between a multivariable set of patient risk factors and the risk of the occurrence of an adverse event. Points-based risk-scoring systems are popular amongst physicians as they permit a rapid assessment of patient risk without the use of computers or other electronic devices. The use of such points-based risk-scoring systems facilitates evidence-based clinical decision making. There is a growing interest in cause-specific mortality and in non-fatal outcomes. However, when considering these types of outcomes, one must account for competing risks whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the event of interest. We describe how points-based risk-scoring systems can be developed in the presence of competing events. We illustrate the application of these methods by developing risk-scoring systems for predicting cardiovascular mortality in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Code in the R statistical programming language is provided for the implementation of the described methods. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (© 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major and increasing constituent of disease burdens worldwide. Early identification of patients at increased risk of developing CKD can guide interventions to slow disease progression, initiate timely referral to appropriate kidney care services, and support targeting of care resources. Risk prediction models can extend laboratory-based CKD screening to earlier stages of disease; however, to date, only a few of them have been externally validated or directly compared outside development populations. Our objective was to validate published CKD prediction models applicable in primary care., Methods: We synthesised two recent systematic reviews of CKD risk prediction models and externally validated selected models for a 5-year horizon of disease onset. We used linked, anonymised, structured (coded) primary and secondary care data from patients resident in Salford (population ~234 k), UK. All adult patients with at least one record in 2009 were followed-up until the end of 2014, death, or CKD onset (n = 178,399). CKD onset was defined as repeated impaired eGFR measures over a period of at least 3 months, or physician diagnosis of CKD Stage 3-5. For each model, we assessed discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis., Results: Seven relevant CKD risk prediction models were identified. Five models also had an associated simplified scoring system. All models discriminated well between patients developing CKD or not, with c-statistics around 0.90. Most of the models were poorly calibrated to our population, substantially over-predicting risk. The two models that did not require recalibration were also the ones that had the best performance in the decision curve analysis., Conclusions: Included CKD prediction models showed good discriminative ability but over-predicted the actual 5-year CKD risk in English primary care patients. QKidney, the only UK-developed model, outperformed the others. Clinical prediction models should be (re)calibrated for their intended uses.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a multifactorial, slow-progressing, non-inflammatory degenerative disease primarily affecting synovial joints. It is usually induced by advanced age and/or trauma and eventually leads to irreversible destruction of articular cartilage and other tissues of the joint. Current research on KOA progression has limited clinical application significance. In this study, we constructed a prediction model for KOA progression based on multiple clinically relevant factors to provide clinicians with an effective tool to intervene in KOA progression. Method: This study utilized the data set from the Dryad database which included patients with Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grades 2 and 3. The KL grades was determined as the dependent variable, while 15 potential predictors were identified as independent variables. Patients were randomized into training set and validation set. The training set underwent LASSO analysis, model creation, visualization, decision curve analysis and internal validation using R language. The validation set is externally validated and F1-score, precision, and recall are computed. Result: A total of 101 patients with KL2 and 94 patients with KL3 were selected. We randomly split the data set into a training set and a validation set by 8:2. We filtered "BMI", "TC", "Hypertension treatment", and "JBS3 (%)" to build the prediction model for progression of KOA. Nomogram used to visualize the model in R language. Area under ROC curve was 0.896 (95% CI 0.847–0.945), indicating high discrimination. Mean absolute error (MAE) of calibration curve = 0.041, showing high calibration. MAE of internal validation error was 0.043, indicating high model calibration. Decision curve analysis showed high net benefit. External validation of the metabolic syndrome column-line graph prediction model was performed by the validation set. The area under the ROC curve was 0.876 (95% CI 0.767–0.984), indicating that the model had a high degree of discrimination. Meanwhile, the calibration curve Mean absolute error was 0.113, indicating that the model had a high degree of calibration. The F1 score is 0.690, the precision is 0.667, and the recall is 0.714. The above metrics represent a good performance of the model. Conclusion: We found that KOA progression was associated with four variable predictors and constructed a predictive model for KOA progression based on the predictors. The clinician can intervene based on the nomogram of our prediction model. Key information: This study is a clinical predictive model of KOA progression. KOA progression prediction model has good credibility and clinical value in the prevention of KOA progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is one of the most common infections in children, no tools exist to risk stratify children with suspected CAP. We developed and validated a prediction model to risk stratify and inform hospitalization decisions in children with suspected CAP. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of children aged 3 months to 18 years with suspected CAP in a pediatric emergency department. Primary outcome was disease severity, defined as mild (discharge home or hospitalization for <24 hours with no oxygen or intravenous [IV] fluids), moderate (hospitalization <24 hours with oxygen or IV fluids, or hospitalization >24 hours), or severe (intensive care unit stay for >24 hours, septic shock, vasoactive agents, positive-pressure ventilation, chest drainage, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death). Ordinal logistic regression and bootstrapped backwards selection were used to derive and internally validate our model. Results Of 1128 children, 371 (32.9%) developed moderate disease and 48 (4.3%) severe disease. Severity models demonstrated excellent discrimination (optimism-corrected c-indices of 0.81) and outstanding calibration. Severity predictors in the final model included respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygenation, retractions, capillary refill, atelectasis or pneumonia on chest radiograph, and pleural effusion. Conclusions We derived and internally validated a score that accurately predicts disease severity in children with suspected CAP. Once externally validated, this score has potential to facilitate management decisions by providing individualized risk estimates that can be used in conjunction with clinical judgment to improve the care of children with suspected CAP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical risk-scoring tools are increasingly recommended for use in general practice. Yet adoption of the tools has been variable and often low. Reasons for this have been explored, but medical students' perspectives have not previously been sought. Aim: To explore medical students' attitudes towards clinical risk-scoring tools. Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight medical students. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: Participants had a good understanding of the use of risk-scoring tools. They would trust them to enable evidence-based practice provided they are easy to use, not time-consuming and their results can help direct management. They were considered useful tools, especially for students and junior doctors. However, many believed the tools hold less value for experienced doctors. Their attitudes seem to have developed from discussions with clinicians, observation on placement, teaching received and exam content. Conclusion: This research recommends that implementation of risk-scoring tools will be increased if they are easier to use and if the belief that they hold less value for experienced doctors is challenged. The role of targeted teaching in changing these perceptions should be explored further, both for students and clinicians, who act as role models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]