학술논문
Evaluation of the performance of existing non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms
Document Type
Report
Source
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. December 28, 2013, Vol. 13
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1471-2261
Abstract
Author(s): Jacob K Kariuki[sup.1] , Eileen M Stuart-Shor[sup.1,2] , Suzanne G Leveille[sup.1] and Laura L Hayman[sup.1] Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be the leading cause of morbidity and mortality [...]
Background The high burden and rising incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in resource constrained countries necessitates implementation of robust and pragmatic primary and secondary prevention strategies. Many current CVD management guidelines recommend absolute cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment as a clinically sound guide to preventive and treatment strategies. Development of non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms enable absolute risk assessment in resource constrained countries. The objective of this review is to evaluate the performance of existing non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms using the benchmarks for clinically useful CV risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues. Methods A literature search to identify non-laboratory based risk prediction algorithms was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Ovid Premier Nursing Journals Plus, and PubMed databases. The identified algorithms were evaluated using the benchmarks for clinically useful cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues. Results Five non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms were identified. The Gaziano and Framingham algorithms met the criteria for appropriateness of statistical methods used to derive the algorithms and endpoints. The Swedish Consultation, Framingham and Gaziano algorithms demonstrated good discrimination in derivation datasets. Only the Gaziano algorithm was externally validated where it had optimal discrimination. The Gaziano and WHO algorithms had chart formats which made them simple and user friendly for clinical application. Conclusion Both the Gaziano and Framingham non-laboratory based algorithms met most of the criteria outlined by Cooney and colleagues. External validation of the algorithms in diverse samples is needed to ascertain their performance and applicability to different populations and to enhance clinicians' confidence in them. Keywords: Global risk assessment, Risk assessment algorithms, Discrimination, Calibration, Absolute cardiovascular risk
Background The high burden and rising incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in resource constrained countries necessitates implementation of robust and pragmatic primary and secondary prevention strategies. Many current CVD management guidelines recommend absolute cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment as a clinically sound guide to preventive and treatment strategies. Development of non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms enable absolute risk assessment in resource constrained countries. The objective of this review is to evaluate the performance of existing non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms using the benchmarks for clinically useful CV risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues. Methods A literature search to identify non-laboratory based risk prediction algorithms was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Ovid Premier Nursing Journals Plus, and PubMed databases. The identified algorithms were evaluated using the benchmarks for clinically useful cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues. Results Five non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms were identified. The Gaziano and Framingham algorithms met the criteria for appropriateness of statistical methods used to derive the algorithms and endpoints. The Swedish Consultation, Framingham and Gaziano algorithms demonstrated good discrimination in derivation datasets. Only the Gaziano algorithm was externally validated where it had optimal discrimination. The Gaziano and WHO algorithms had chart formats which made them simple and user friendly for clinical application. Conclusion Both the Gaziano and Framingham non-laboratory based algorithms met most of the criteria outlined by Cooney and colleagues. External validation of the algorithms in diverse samples is needed to ascertain their performance and applicability to different populations and to enhance clinicians' confidence in them. Keywords: Global risk assessment, Risk assessment algorithms, Discrimination, Calibration, Absolute cardiovascular risk