Tufts PACE Clinical Predictive Model Registry: update 1990 through 2015
Open Access
- 21 December 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Diagnostic and Prognostic Research
- Vol. 1 (1) , 1-8
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-017-0021-2
Abstract
Clinical predictive models (CPMs) estimate the probability of clinical outcomes and hold the potential to improve decision-making and individualize care. The Tufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) CPM Registry is a comprehensive database of cardiovascular disease (CVD) CPMs. The Registry was last updated in 2012, and there continues to be substantial growth in the number of available CPMs. We updated a systematic review of CPMs for CVD to include articles published from January 1990 to March 2015. CVD includes coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure (CHF), arrhythmias, stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). The updated Registry characterizes CPMs based on population under study, model performance, covariates, and predicted outcomes. The Registry includes 747 articles presenting 1083 models, including both prognostic (n = 1060) and diagnostic (n = 23) CPMs representing 183 distinct index condition/outcome pairs. There was a threefold increase in the number of CPMs published between 2005 and 2014, compared to the prior 10-year interval from 1995 to 2004. The majority of CPMs were derived from either North American (n = 455, 42%) or European (n = 344, 32%) populations. The database contains 265 CPMs predicting outcomes for patients with coronary artery disease, 196 CPMs for population samples at risk for incident CVD, and 158 models for patients with stroke. Approximately two thirds (n = 701, 65%) of CPMs report a c-statistic, with a median reported c-statistic of 0.77 (IQR, 0.05). Of the CPMs reporting validations, only 333 (57%) report some measure of model calibration. Reporting of discrimination but not calibration is improving over time (p for trend < 0.0001 and 0.39 respectively). There is substantial redundancy of CPMs for a wide spectrum of CVD conditions. While the number of CPMs continues to increase, model performance is often inadequately reported and calibration is infrequently assessed. More work is needed to understand the potential impact of this literature.Keywords
Funding Information
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (IP2PI000722, ME-1606-35555)
- National Institutes of Health (U01NS086294, T32HL069770, UL1 TR001064)
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in AdultsJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2014
- External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reportingBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014
- 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive SummaryCirculation, 2013
- 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart FailureCirculation, 2013
- Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: Prognostic Model ResearchPLoS Medicine, 2013
- Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: A framework for researching clinical outcomesBMJ, 2013
- Index Event Bias as an Explanation for the Paradoxes of Recurrence Risk ResearchJAMA, 2011
- Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction ModelsMedical Decision Making, 2006
- Emergency Department Workplace Interruptions Are Emergency Physicians “Interrupt‐driven” and “Multitasking”?Academic Emergency Medicine, 2000
- Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study Commentary: Why do doctors overestimate? Commentary: Prognoses should be based on proved indices not intuitionBMJ, 2000