Cited by 935Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review

Open access
Damen, Johanna A A G, Hooft, Lotty, Schuit, Ewoud, Debray, Thomas P A, Collins, Gary S, Tzoulaki, Ioanna, Lassale, Camille M, Siontis, George C M +9 more·2016·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase until June 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population. RESULTS: 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.i2416

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A review of prediction models for cardiovascular disease identified 363 models and concluded that the usefulness of most models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies.

    “a review of prediction models for cardiovascular disease identified 363 models19; the authors concluded that “the usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies.””

    From Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Published prediction modelling studies often have severe methodological limitations that undermine their usefulness.

    “Empirical evidence suggests that published studies often have severe methodological limitations, which undermine their usefulness.”

    From Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [11]Lipid modification: cardiovascular risk assessment and the modification of blood lipids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. NICE guidelines [CG181], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181. 25340243
  2. [13]Matheny M, McPheeters ML, Glasser A, et al. Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment Tools Rockville MD, 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56166/. 21796824

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Damen, J. A. A. G., Hooft, L., Schuit, E., Debray, T. P. A., Collins, G. S., Tzoulaki, I., Lassale, C. M., Siontis, G. C. M., Chiocchia, V., Roberts, C., Schlüssel, M. M., Gerry, S., Black, J. A., Heus, P., van der Schouw, Y. T., Peelen, L. M., & Moons, K. G. M.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University Hospital of Bern (CH)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Damen, Johanna A A G
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-05-16
Volume
353
Pages
i2416
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2399385044
Cited by
935
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 121 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 11
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (16895)
  • European Commission (279233)
  • ZonMw (91208004, 918.10.615)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (918.10.615)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/4, G1100513)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
cardiovascular risk prediction, risk prediction model, coronary artery disease, external validation, discrimination and calibration, smoking, age, model heterogeneity, general population
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review