Formal and informal prediction of recurrent stroke and myocardial infarction after stroke: a systematic review and evaluation of clinical prediction models in a new cohort.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to: (1) systematically review the reporting and methods used in the development of clinical prediction models for recurrent stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) after ischemic stroke; (2) to meta-analyze their external performance; and (3) to compare clinical prediction models to informal clinicians' prediction in the Edinburgh Stroke Study (ESS).


METHODS
We searched Medline, EMBASE, reference lists and forward citations of relevant articles from 1980 to 19 April 2013. We included articles which developed multivariable clinical prediction models for the prediction of recurrent stroke and/or MI following ischemic stroke. We extracted information to assess aspects of model development as well as metrics of performance to determine predictive ability. Model quality was assessed against a pre-defined set of criteria. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool performance metrics.


RESULTS
We identified twelve model development studies and eleven evaluation studies. Investigators often did not report effective sample size, regression coefficients, handling of missing data; typically categorized continuous predictors; and used data dependent methods to build models. A meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) was possible for the Essen Stroke Risk Score (ESRS) and for the Stroke Prognosis Instrument II (SPI-II); the pooled AUROCCs were 0.60 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.62) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.64), respectively. An evaluation among minor stroke patients in the ESS demonstrated that clinicians discriminated poorly between those with and those without recurrent events and that this was similar to clinical prediction models.


CONCLUSIONS
The available models for recurrent stroke discriminate poorly between patients with and without a recurrent stroke or MI after stroke. Models had a similar discrimination to informal clinicians' predictions. Formal prediction may be improved by addressing commonly encountered methodological problems.
Edinburgh MRC Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. D.Thompson-3@sms.ed.ac.uk.
Douglas D
DD
Thompson
Gordon D
GD
Murray
Martin
M
Dennis
Cathie L M
CL
Sudlow
William N
WN
Whiteley
D019540:Area Under Curve; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D011379:Prognosis; D012372:ROC Curve; D012008:Recurrence; D012107:Research Design; D020521:Stroke / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis*