Risk predictive modelling for diabetes and cardiovascular disease

References

• Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1635–701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colagiuri R, Girgis S, Gomez M, et al. Evidence Based Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes. Canberra: Diabetes Australia and the NHMRC, 2009:1--166
   Google Scholar
• Mendis S, Alwan A, eds. Prioritized Research Agenda for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241564205_eng.pdf [last accessed 29 Sept 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Grundy SM, Becker D, Clark LT, et al. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002;106:3143–421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillies CL, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, et al. Pharmacological and lifestyle interventions to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2007;334:299--302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noncommunicable Diseases Country Profiles 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241502283_eng.pdf [last accessed 29 Sept 2013]
   Google Scholar
• International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 5th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation, 2011. Available from: http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas [last accessed 29 Sept 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann PD, Brett AS, Mayo-Smith MF. Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:414–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grover SA, Lowensteyn I, Esrey KL, et al. Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study. BMJ 1995;310:975–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan S, Pignone M, Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:1039–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CJ, Lauer JA, Hutubessy RC, et al. Effectiveness and costs of interventions to lower systolic blood pressure and cholesterol: a global and regional analysis on reduction of cardiovascular-disease risk. Lancet 2003;361:717–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J. International Diabetes Federation: a consensus on type 2 diabetes prevention. Diabet Med 2007;24:451–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulweber B, Valensi P, Lindstrom J, et al. A European evidence-based guideline for the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Horm Metab Res 2010;42:S3–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000;284:79–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matheny M, McPheeters ML, Glasser A, et al. Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment Tools. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2011
   Google Scholar
• Noble D, Mathur R, Dent T, et al. Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: systematic review. BMJ 2011;343:d7163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Batty GD, Kivimaki M, Kengne AP. Risk models to predict hypertension: a systematic review. PLoS One 2013;8:e67370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kengne AP, Turnbull F, MacMahon S. The Framingham Study, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: turning back the clock. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2010;53:45–51
   Google Scholar
• van Dieren S, Beulens JW, Kengne AP, et al. Prediction models for the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Heart 2012;98:360–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truett J, Cornfield J, Kannel W. A multivariate analysis of the risk of coronary heart disease in Framingham. J Chronic Dis 1967;20:511–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bitton A, Gaziano TA. The Framingham Heart Study’s impact on global risk assessment. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2010;53:68–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, Kannel WB. An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Circulation 1991;83:356–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998;97:1837–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson KM. A nonproportional hazards Weibull accelerated failure time regression model. Biometrics 1991;47:281–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991;121:293–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2008;117:743–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration. Coronary risk prediction for those with and without diabetes. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2006;13:30–6
   Google Scholar
• Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration. Cardiovascular risk prediction tools for populations in Asia. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2007;61:115–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assmann G, Cullen P, Schulte H. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) study. Circulation 2002;105:310–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward M, Brindle P, Tunstall-Pedoe H. Adding social deprivation and family history to cardiovascular risk assessment: the ASSIGN score from the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC). Heart 2007;93:172–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conroy RM, Pyorala K, Fitzgerald AP, et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003;24:987–1003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:136--41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 2008;336:1475–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern MP, Morales PA, Valdez RA, et al. Predicting diabetes. Moving beyond impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes 1993;42:706–14
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herman WH, Smith PJ, Thompson TJ, et al. A new and simple questionnaire to identify people at increased risk for undiagnosed diabetes. Diabetes Care 1995;18:382–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern MP, Williams K, Haffner SM. Identification of persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: do we need the oral glucose tolerance test? Ann Intern Med 2002;136:575–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Leonetti DL, et al. Comparison of a clinical model, the oral glucose tolerance test, and fasting glucose for prediction of type 2 diabetes risk in Japanese Americans. Diabetes Care 2003;26:758–63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown N, Critchley J, Bogowicz P, et al. Risk scores based on self-reported or available clinical data to detect undiagnosed type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012;98:369–85
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buijsse B, Simmons RK, Griffin SJ, Schulze MB. Risk assessment tools for identifying individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33:46–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobbee D, Hoes A. Clinical Epidemiology: Principle, Methods and Applications for Clinical Research. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett, 2008:1--356
   Google Scholar
• Moons KG, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, et al. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ 2009;338:1317–20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM. The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci (Lond) 2001;101:671–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kothari V, Stevens RJ, Adler AI, et al. UKPDS 60: risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes estimated by the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine. Stroke 2002;33:1776–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kengne AP, Patel A, Marre M, et al. Contemporary model for cardiovascular risk prediction in people with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2011;18:393–8
   Google Scholar
• Biesheuvel CJ, Vergouwe Y, Oudega R, et al. Advantages of the nested case-control design in diagnostic research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ganna A, Reilly M, de Faire U, et al. Risk prediction measures for case-cohort and nested case-control designs: an application to cardiovascular disease. Am J Epidemiol 2012;175:715–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Dieffenbach SD, Kengne AP. Added value of novel circulating and genetic biomarkers in type 2 diabetes prediction: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2013;101:255--69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins GS, Mallett S, Omar O, Yu LM. Developing risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of methodology and reporting. BMC Med 2011;9:103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies. 1st ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2001:568
   Google Scholar
• Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Robson J, et al. Predicting risk of type 2 diabetes in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QDScore. BMJ 2009;338:b880
   Google Scholar
• Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, et al. Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:7-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG. Problems in dichotomizing continuous variables. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:442–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 2006;332:1080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collett D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2003:391
   Google Scholar
• Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1503–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1373–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen KJ, Donders AR, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Missing covariate data in medical research: to impute is better than to ignore. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:721–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG. Development and validation of a prediction model with missing predictor data: a practical approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:205–14
   Google Scholar
• de Groot JA, Janssen KJ, Zwinderman AH, et al. Multiple imputation to correct for partial verification bias revisited. StatMed 2008;27:5880–9
   Google Scholar
• Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NP, Mallett S, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moons KG, Kengne AP, Woodward M, et al. Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker. Heart 2012;98:683–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. New York: Springer, 2009:1--462
   Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York: Willey, 2004:1–25
   Google Scholar
• D’Agostino RB, Nam BH. Evaluation of the performance of survival analysis models: discrimination and calibration measures. In: Balakrishnan N, Rao CR, eds. Handbook of Statistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004:1–25
   Google Scholar
• May S, Hosmer DW. A simplified method of calculating an overall goodness-of-fit test for the Cox propotional hazards model. Lifetime Data Anal 1998;4:109–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modelling of Time to Event Data. New York: Wiley, 1999:1--386
   Google Scholar
• Gaziano TA, Young CR, Fitzmaurice G, et al. Laboratory-based versus non-laboratory-based method for assessment of cardiovascular disease risk: the NHANES I Follow-up Study cohort. Lancet 2008;371:923–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook NR. Assessing the incremental role of novel and emerging risk factors. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 2010;4:112–19
   Google Scholar
• Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, D’Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. StatMed 2008;27:157–72; discussion 207–12
   Google Scholar
• Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. StatMed 2011;30:11–21
   Google Scholar
• Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Statistical methods for assessment of added usefulness of new biomarkers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1703–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D’Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. StatMed 2004;23:1631–60
   Google Scholar
• McManus RJ, Mant J, Meulendijks CF, et al. Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study. BMJ 2002;324:459–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heianza Y, Arase Y, Saito K, et al. Development of a screening score for undiagnosed diabetes and its application in estimating absolute risk of future type 2 diabetes in Japan: Toranomon Hospital Health Management Center Study 10 (TOPICS 10). J Clin Endocr Metab 2013;98:1051–60
   Google Scholar
• Kengne AP, Patel A, Colagiuri S, et al. The Framingham and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk equations do not reliably estimate the probability of cardiovascular events in a large ethnically diverse sample of patients with diabetes: the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) Study. Diabetologia 2010;53:821–31
   Google Scholar
• Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:515–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moons KG, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, et al. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart 2012;98:691–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen KJ, Moons KG, Kalkman CJ, et al. Updating methods improved the performance of a clinical prediction model in new patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:76–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JP. Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA 2009;302:2345–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace E, Smith SM, Perera-Salazar R, et al. Framework for the impact analysis and implementation of Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011;11:62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krones T, Keller H, Sonnichsen A, et al. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2008;6:218–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells S, Furness S, Rafter N, et al. Integrated electronic decision support increases cardiovascular disease risk assessment four fold in routine primary care practice. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2008;15:173–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitfield MD, Gillett M, Holmes M, Ogden E. Predicting the impact of population level risk reduction in cardio-vascular disease and stroke on acute hospital admission rates over a 5 year period – a pilot study. Public Health 2006;120:1140–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson TA, Gutkin SW, Harper CR. Effects of a global risk educational tool on primary coronary prevention: the Atherosclerosis Assessment Via Total Risk (AVIATOR) study. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1065–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persell SD, Zei C, Cameron KA, et al. Potential use of 10-year and lifetime coronary risk information for preventive cardiology prescribing decisions: a primary care physician survey. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:470–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kulzer B, Hermanns N, Gorges D, et al. Prevention of diabetes self-management program (PREDIAS): effects on weight, metabolic risk factors, and behavioral outcomes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1143–6
   Google Scholar
• Johnson M, Jones R, Freeman C, et al. Can diabetes prevention programmes be translated effectively into real-world settings and still deliver improved outcomes? A synthesis of evidence. Diabet Med 2013;30:3–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis A, Davies M, Yates T, Khunti K. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using validated risk scores: a systematic review. J R Soc Med 2012;105:348–56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan SL, Crespo E. Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:60
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan SL, Viera AJ, Krantz MJ, et al. The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:230–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, et al. What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2011;82:169–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R, et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement. evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966–1998. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:S14–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazza D, Bairstow P, Buchan H, et al. Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification. Implement Sci 2013;8:32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schulz R, Czaja SJ, McKay JR, et al. Intervention taxonomy (ITAX): describing essential features of interventions. Am J Health Behav 2010;34:811–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusamento S, Legido-Quigley H, Panteli D, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of strategies to implement clinical guidelines for the management of chronic diseases at primary care level in EU Member States: a systematic review. Health Policy 2012;107:168–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbasi A, Peelen LM, Corpeleijn E, et al. Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study. BMJ 2012;345:e5900
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siontis GC, Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP. Comparisons of established risk prediction models for cardiovascular disease: systematic review. BMJ 2012;344:e3318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferket BS, Colkesen EB, Visser JJ, et al. Systematic review of guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment: which recommendations should clinicians follow for a cardiovascular health check? Arch Intern Med 2010;170:27–40
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd-Jones DM. Cardiovascular risk prediction: basic concepts, current status, and future directions. Circulation 2010;121:1768–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar