1. Recommendations for prediction models in clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases are over-optimistic: a global survey utilizing a systematic literature search
- Author
-
Cheng-yang Jing, Le Zhang, Lin Feng, Jia-chen Li, Li-rong Liang, Jing Hu, and Xing Liao
- Subjects
prediction model ,recommendation ,clinical practice guideline ,cardiovascular diseases ,methodological quality ,risk of bias ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF