Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review
Background and objective This review compares non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction equations in populations targeted for primary prevention.Design Systematic review.Methods We searched five databases until 12 March 2024 and used prediction study risk...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Open Heart |
| Online Access: | https://openheart.bmj.com/content/12/1/e003147.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background and objective This review compares non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction equations in populations targeted for primary prevention.Design Systematic review.Methods We searched five databases until 12 March 2024 and used prediction study risk of bias assessment tool to assess bias. Data on hazard ratios (HRs), discrimination (paired c-statistics) and calibration were extracted. Differences in c-statistics and HRs were analysed. Protocol: PROSPERO (CRD42021291936).Results Nine studies (1 238 562 participants, 46 cohorts) identified six unique CVD risk equations. Laboratory predictors (eg, cholesterol and diabetes) had strong HRs, while body mass index in non-laboratory models showed limited effect. Median c-statistics were 0.74 for both models (IQR: lab 0.77–0.72; non-lab 0.76–0.70), with a median absolute difference of 0.01. Calibration measures between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based equations were similar, although non-calibrated equations often overestimated risk.Conclusion The discrimination and calibration measures between laboratory-based and non-laboratory-based models show minimal differences, demonstrating the insensitivity of c-statistics and calibration metrics to the inclusion of additional predictors. However, in most reviewed studies, the HRs for these additional predictors were substantial, significantly altering predicted risk, particularly for individuals with higher or lower levels of these predictors compared with the average. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2053-3624 |