Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search

BackgroundThis study aimed to synthesize the recommendations for prediction models in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and assess the methodological quality of the relevant primary modeling studies.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of all available cardiovascular C...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cheng-yang Jing, Le Zhang, Lin Feng, Jia-chen Li, Li-rong Liang, Jing Hu, Xing Liao
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2024-10-01
Series:Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449058/full
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850184539300691968
author Cheng-yang Jing
Le Zhang
Lin Feng
Jia-chen Li
Li-rong Liang
Jing Hu
Xing Liao
author_facet Cheng-yang Jing
Le Zhang
Lin Feng
Jia-chen Li
Li-rong Liang
Jing Hu
Xing Liao
author_sort Cheng-yang Jing
collection DOAJ
description BackgroundThis study aimed to synthesize the recommendations for prediction models in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and assess the methodological quality of the relevant primary modeling studies.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of all available cardiovascular CPGs published between 2018 and 2023 that presented specific recommendations (whether in support or non-support) for at least one multivariable clinical prediction model. For the guideline-recommended models, the assessment of the methodological quality of their primary modeling studies was conducted using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).ResultsIn total, 46 qualified cardiovascular CPGs were included, with 69 prediction models and 80 specific recommendations. Of the 80 specific recommendations, 74 supported 57 models (53 were fully recommended and 4 were conditionally recommended) in cardiovascular practice with moderate to strong strength. Most of the guideline-recommended models were focused on predicting prognosis outcomes (53/57, 93%) in primary and tertiary prevention, focusing primarily on long-term risk stratification and prognosis management. A total of 10 conditions and 7 types of target population were involved in the 57 models, while heart failure (14/57, 25%) and a general population with or without cardiovascular risk factor(s) (12/57, 21%) received the most attention from the guidelines. The assessment of the methodological quality of 57 primary studies on the development of the guideline-recommended models revealed that only 40% of the modeling studies had a low risk of bias (ROB). The causes of high ROB were mainly in the analysis and participant domains.ConclusionsGlobal cardiovascular CPGs presented an unduly positive appraisal of the existing prediction models in terms of ROB, leading to stronger recommendations than were warranted. Future cardiovascular practice may benefit from well-established clinical prediction models with better methodological quality and extensive external validation.
format Article
id doaj-art-5f9f9686bc07452a9cc2d8af12610c43
institution OA Journals
issn 2297-055X
language English
publishDate 2024-10-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
spelling doaj-art-5f9f9686bc07452a9cc2d8af12610c432025-08-20T02:17:00ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine2297-055X2024-10-011110.3389/fcvm.2024.14490581449058Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature searchCheng-yang Jing0Le Zhang1Lin Feng2Jia-chen Li3Li-rong Liang4Jing Hu5Xing Liao6Center for Evidence Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, ChinaCenter for Evidence Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaBeijing Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaCenter for Evidence Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, ChinaBackgroundThis study aimed to synthesize the recommendations for prediction models in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and assess the methodological quality of the relevant primary modeling studies.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of all available cardiovascular CPGs published between 2018 and 2023 that presented specific recommendations (whether in support or non-support) for at least one multivariable clinical prediction model. For the guideline-recommended models, the assessment of the methodological quality of their primary modeling studies was conducted using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).ResultsIn total, 46 qualified cardiovascular CPGs were included, with 69 prediction models and 80 specific recommendations. Of the 80 specific recommendations, 74 supported 57 models (53 were fully recommended and 4 were conditionally recommended) in cardiovascular practice with moderate to strong strength. Most of the guideline-recommended models were focused on predicting prognosis outcomes (53/57, 93%) in primary and tertiary prevention, focusing primarily on long-term risk stratification and prognosis management. A total of 10 conditions and 7 types of target population were involved in the 57 models, while heart failure (14/57, 25%) and a general population with or without cardiovascular risk factor(s) (12/57, 21%) received the most attention from the guidelines. The assessment of the methodological quality of 57 primary studies on the development of the guideline-recommended models revealed that only 40% of the modeling studies had a low risk of bias (ROB). The causes of high ROB were mainly in the analysis and participant domains.ConclusionsGlobal cardiovascular CPGs presented an unduly positive appraisal of the existing prediction models in terms of ROB, leading to stronger recommendations than were warranted. Future cardiovascular practice may benefit from well-established clinical prediction models with better methodological quality and extensive external validation.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449058/fullprediction modelrecommendationclinical practice guidelinecardiovascular diseasesmethodological qualityrisk of bias
spellingShingle Cheng-yang Jing
Le Zhang
Lin Feng
Jia-chen Li
Li-rong Liang
Jing Hu
Xing Liao
Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
prediction model
recommendation
clinical practice guideline
cardiovascular diseases
methodological quality
risk of bias
title Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
title_full Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
title_fullStr Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
title_full_unstemmed Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
title_short Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
title_sort recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over optimistic a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
topic prediction model
recommendation
clinical practice guideline
cardiovascular diseases
methodological quality
risk of bias
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449058/full
work_keys_str_mv AT chengyangjing recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch
AT lezhang recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch
AT linfeng recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch
AT jiachenli recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch
AT lirongliang recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch
AT jinghu recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch
AT xingliao recommendationsforpredictionmodelsinclinicalpracticeguidelinesforcardiovasculardiseasesareoveroptimisticaglobalsurveyutilizingasystematicliteraturesearch