Discrimination capability of pretest probability of stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis suggesting how to improve validation procedures

稳定型冠状动脉疾病预检概率的鉴别能力:一项系统评价和荟萃分析,旨在探讨如何改进验证程序

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Externally validated pretest probability models for risk stratification of subjects with chest pain and suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), determined through invasive coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography, are analysed to characterise the best validation procedures in terms of discriminatory ability, predictive variables and method completeness. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Global Health (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid) and MEDLINE (Ovid) searched on 22 April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies validating pretest models for the first-line assessment of patients with chest pain and suspected stable CAD. Reasons for exclusion: acute coronary syndrome, unstable chest pain, a history of myocardial infarction or previous revascularisation; models referring to diagnostic procedures different from the usual practices of the first-line assessment; univariable models; lack of quantitative discrimination capability. METHODS: Eligibility screening and review were performed independently by all the authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among all the authors. The quality assessment of studies conforms to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). A random effects meta-analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for each validated model was performed. RESULTS: 27 studies were included for a total of 15 models. Besides age, sex and symptom typicality, other risk factors are smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia. Only one model considers genetic profile. AUC values range from 0.51 to 0.81. Significant heterogeneity (p<0.003) was found in all but two cases (p>0.12). Values of I(2) >90% for most analyses and not significant meta-regression results undermined relevant interpretations. A detailed discussion of individual results was then carried out. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a clearer statement of endpoints, their consistent measurement both in the derivation and validation phases, more comprehensive validation analyses and the enhancement of threshold validations to assess the effects of pretest models on clinical management. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139388.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。