Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score
With heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes. To evaluate the reported design and analysis of studies that examined whether additional predictors improve predictive performance when added to the Frami...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association Ročník 302; číslo 21; s. 2345 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
United States
02.12.2009
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1538-3598, 1538-3598 |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | With heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes.
To evaluate the reported design and analysis of studies that examined whether additional predictors improve predictive performance when added to the Framingham risk score (FRS), one of the most widely validated and cited clinical prediction scores.
Two independent investigators searched 1908 articles citing the article that described the FRS in 1998 until September 2009 through the ISI Web of Knowledge database. Articles were eligible if they included any analyses comparing the predictive performance of the FRS vs the FRS plus some additional predictor for a prospectively assessed outcome. Data Analyses We recorded information on FRS calculation, modeling of additional predictors, outcomes assessed, population evaluated, subgroup analysis documentation, and flaws in the methods that may have affected the reported improvements in predictive ability. We also evaluated the correlation of reported design and analysis features with the predictive model discrimination and improvements with the additional predictors.
We evaluated 79 eligible articles. Forty-nine studies (62%) did not calculate the FRS as it has been proposed, 15 (19%) modeled the additional predictor in more than 1 way and presented only the best-fit or area-under-the-curve (AUC) results for only 1 model, 41 (52%) did not examine the original outcome that the FRS was developed for, 33 (42%) studied a population different from what the FRS was intended for, and 25 (32%) claimed improved prediction in 1 subgroup but only 7 (9%) formally tested subgroup differences. Evaluation of independence in multivariable regressions, discrimination in AUC, calibration, and reclassification were reported in 77, 36, 7, and 7 studies, respectively, but these methods were adequately documented in only 60, 13, 4, and 2 studies, respectively. Overall, 63 studies (80%) claimed some improved prediction. Increase in AUC was larger when the predictive performance of the FRS was lower (rho = -0.57, P < .001). Increase in AUC was significantly larger when evaluation of independence in multivariable regression or discrimination in AUC analysis was not adequately documented and when the additional predictor had been modeled in more than 1 way and only 1 model was reported for AUC.
The majority of examined studies claimed that they found factors that could offer additional predictive value beyond what the FRS could achieve; however, most had flaws in their design, analyses, and reporting that cast some doubt on the reliability of the claims for improved prediction. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | With heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes.
To evaluate the reported design and analysis of studies that examined whether additional predictors improve predictive performance when added to the Framingham risk score (FRS), one of the most widely validated and cited clinical prediction scores.
Two independent investigators searched 1908 articles citing the article that described the FRS in 1998 until September 2009 through the ISI Web of Knowledge database. Articles were eligible if they included any analyses comparing the predictive performance of the FRS vs the FRS plus some additional predictor for a prospectively assessed outcome. Data Analyses We recorded information on FRS calculation, modeling of additional predictors, outcomes assessed, population evaluated, subgroup analysis documentation, and flaws in the methods that may have affected the reported improvements in predictive ability. We also evaluated the correlation of reported design and analysis features with the predictive model discrimination and improvements with the additional predictors.
We evaluated 79 eligible articles. Forty-nine studies (62%) did not calculate the FRS as it has been proposed, 15 (19%) modeled the additional predictor in more than 1 way and presented only the best-fit or area-under-the-curve (AUC) results for only 1 model, 41 (52%) did not examine the original outcome that the FRS was developed for, 33 (42%) studied a population different from what the FRS was intended for, and 25 (32%) claimed improved prediction in 1 subgroup but only 7 (9%) formally tested subgroup differences. Evaluation of independence in multivariable regressions, discrimination in AUC, calibration, and reclassification were reported in 77, 36, 7, and 7 studies, respectively, but these methods were adequately documented in only 60, 13, 4, and 2 studies, respectively. Overall, 63 studies (80%) claimed some improved prediction. Increase in AUC was larger when the predictive performance of the FRS was lower (rho = -0.57, P < .001). Increase in AUC was significantly larger when evaluation of independence in multivariable regression or discrimination in AUC analysis was not adequately documented and when the additional predictor had been modeled in more than 1 way and only 1 model was reported for AUC.
The majority of examined studies claimed that they found factors that could offer additional predictive value beyond what the FRS could achieve; however, most had flaws in their design, analyses, and reporting that cast some doubt on the reliability of the claims for improved prediction. With heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes.CONTEXTWith heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes.To evaluate the reported design and analysis of studies that examined whether additional predictors improve predictive performance when added to the Framingham risk score (FRS), one of the most widely validated and cited clinical prediction scores.OBJECTIVETo evaluate the reported design and analysis of studies that examined whether additional predictors improve predictive performance when added to the Framingham risk score (FRS), one of the most widely validated and cited clinical prediction scores.Two independent investigators searched 1908 articles citing the article that described the FRS in 1998 until September 2009 through the ISI Web of Knowledge database. Articles were eligible if they included any analyses comparing the predictive performance of the FRS vs the FRS plus some additional predictor for a prospectively assessed outcome. Data Analyses We recorded information on FRS calculation, modeling of additional predictors, outcomes assessed, population evaluated, subgroup analysis documentation, and flaws in the methods that may have affected the reported improvements in predictive ability. We also evaluated the correlation of reported design and analysis features with the predictive model discrimination and improvements with the additional predictors.STUDY SELECTIONTwo independent investigators searched 1908 articles citing the article that described the FRS in 1998 until September 2009 through the ISI Web of Knowledge database. Articles were eligible if they included any analyses comparing the predictive performance of the FRS vs the FRS plus some additional predictor for a prospectively assessed outcome. Data Analyses We recorded information on FRS calculation, modeling of additional predictors, outcomes assessed, population evaluated, subgroup analysis documentation, and flaws in the methods that may have affected the reported improvements in predictive ability. We also evaluated the correlation of reported design and analysis features with the predictive model discrimination and improvements with the additional predictors.We evaluated 79 eligible articles. Forty-nine studies (62%) did not calculate the FRS as it has been proposed, 15 (19%) modeled the additional predictor in more than 1 way and presented only the best-fit or area-under-the-curve (AUC) results for only 1 model, 41 (52%) did not examine the original outcome that the FRS was developed for, 33 (42%) studied a population different from what the FRS was intended for, and 25 (32%) claimed improved prediction in 1 subgroup but only 7 (9%) formally tested subgroup differences. Evaluation of independence in multivariable regressions, discrimination in AUC, calibration, and reclassification were reported in 77, 36, 7, and 7 studies, respectively, but these methods were adequately documented in only 60, 13, 4, and 2 studies, respectively. Overall, 63 studies (80%) claimed some improved prediction. Increase in AUC was larger when the predictive performance of the FRS was lower (rho = -0.57, P < .001). Increase in AUC was significantly larger when evaluation of independence in multivariable regression or discrimination in AUC analysis was not adequately documented and when the additional predictor had been modeled in more than 1 way and only 1 model was reported for AUC.RESULTSWe evaluated 79 eligible articles. Forty-nine studies (62%) did not calculate the FRS as it has been proposed, 15 (19%) modeled the additional predictor in more than 1 way and presented only the best-fit or area-under-the-curve (AUC) results for only 1 model, 41 (52%) did not examine the original outcome that the FRS was developed for, 33 (42%) studied a population different from what the FRS was intended for, and 25 (32%) claimed improved prediction in 1 subgroup but only 7 (9%) formally tested subgroup differences. Evaluation of independence in multivariable regressions, discrimination in AUC, calibration, and reclassification were reported in 77, 36, 7, and 7 studies, respectively, but these methods were adequately documented in only 60, 13, 4, and 2 studies, respectively. Overall, 63 studies (80%) claimed some improved prediction. Increase in AUC was larger when the predictive performance of the FRS was lower (rho = -0.57, P < .001). Increase in AUC was significantly larger when evaluation of independence in multivariable regression or discrimination in AUC analysis was not adequately documented and when the additional predictor had been modeled in more than 1 way and only 1 model was reported for AUC.The majority of examined studies claimed that they found factors that could offer additional predictive value beyond what the FRS could achieve; however, most had flaws in their design, analyses, and reporting that cast some doubt on the reliability of the claims for improved prediction.CONCLUSIONThe majority of examined studies claimed that they found factors that could offer additional predictive value beyond what the FRS could achieve; however, most had flaws in their design, analyses, and reporting that cast some doubt on the reliability of the claims for improved prediction. |
| Author | Tzoulaki, Ioanna Liberopoulos, George Ioannidis, John P A |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Ioanna surname: Tzoulaki fullname: Tzoulaki, Ioanna organization: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College of Medicine, London, England – sequence: 2 givenname: George surname: Liberopoulos fullname: Liberopoulos, George – sequence: 3 givenname: John P A surname: Ioannidis fullname: Ioannidis, John P A |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952321$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkE1LAzEYhINU7IdePUpunrbms0mOpVgVCl70vGQ379rUTVI3W6H_vitWcC4zh4dhmCkaxRQBoVtK5pQQ-rCzwc4ZIWZOlVQXaEIl1wWXRo_-5TGa5rwjgyhXV2hMjZGMMzpBm2XOkHOA2OPU4Lq1PuSf5MO-S9_g8L4D5-vep4grOKbocL8FvO5s8PFjawPufP7EuU4dXKPLxrYZbs4-Q-_rx7fVc7F5fXpZLTeFFVz2BQVJBBWqkcAbpsBo7RaNEcaA0-AqW1NQAhQXtKFAFhUjNXGG1IYzwYhiM3T_2ztM_DpA7svgcw1tayOkQy4V51oPKB_IuzN5qAK4ct_5YLtj-XcAOwGDLF7V |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1038_s41380_019_0516_z crossref_primary_10_1161_HYPERTENSIONAHA_110_150771 crossref_primary_10_1002_jcv2_12133 crossref_primary_10_1111_eci_12583 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12350_011_9415_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_autrev_2024_103690 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jcpo_2017_09_010 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12863_023_01151_4 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_2362_2011_02494_x crossref_primary_10_1186_1741_7015_10_51 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCGENETICS_111_959668 crossref_primary_10_1097_CCM_0b013e318218a05b crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2458_11_144 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1001744 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12561_014_9118_0 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41380_019_0636_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_l6927 crossref_primary_10_1177_0004867414565476 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_018_1013_y crossref_primary_10_1200_JCO_2014_58_0092 crossref_primary_10_1177_2047487312444233 crossref_primary_10_1373_jalm_2017_025403 crossref_primary_10_1177_0284185118757274 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0140889 crossref_primary_10_1097_HJH_0b013e328344daa3 crossref_primary_10_3109_14767058_2013_844123 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_110_953463 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2288_14_137 crossref_primary_10_1373_clinchem_2012_182550 crossref_primary_10_7326_M18_1377 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00580_018_2868_1 crossref_primary_10_1177_0272989X17732994 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12918_017_0474_5 crossref_primary_10_3945_jn_110_133140 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2013_10_021 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_nurpra_2010_11_006 crossref_primary_10_1097_JCN_0b013e3182a409cc crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_6165 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_6286 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2011_02_003 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2016_04_018 crossref_primary_10_1097_TP_0b013e31821f303f crossref_primary_10_1161_HYPERTENSIONAHA_120_13516 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00500_023_08212_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s10985_012_9238_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_autrev_2014_05_001 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_5598 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1001599 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1000420 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_115_008718 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0185320 crossref_primary_10_1177_1753944710391350 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2011_02_004 crossref_primary_10_1038_oby_2012_152 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41380_022_01597_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10654_020_00681_w crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCGEN_120_003283 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_109_909309 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_compbiomed_2016_06_010 crossref_primary_10_1038_mp_2015_198 crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehu207 crossref_primary_10_1093_aje_kws207 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2016_01_020 crossref_primary_10_1097_HPC_0000000000000016 crossref_primary_10_1152_japplphysiol_00414_2010 crossref_primary_10_1161_HCG_0000000000000037 crossref_primary_10_1097_GME_0000000000001856 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0096368 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ehj_2017_12_008 crossref_primary_10_1111_jth_12262 crossref_primary_10_1080_14656566_2018_1511703 crossref_primary_10_1108_BIJ_01_2020_0028 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13167_018_0142_x crossref_primary_10_1186_1745_6215_11_85 crossref_primary_10_1097_MCC_0b013e328339fad5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mayocp_2015_07_017 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10654_011_9552_y crossref_primary_10_1038_ejhg_2011_27 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0113044 crossref_primary_10_1038_ejhg_2011_25 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00439_016_1636_z crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCHEARTFAILURE_110_958223 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jacc_2011_01_020 crossref_primary_10_1177_0961203314541317 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCGEN_120_003304 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11845_017_1718_5 crossref_primary_10_1177_0272989X12470757 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpobgyn_2018_05_004 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_2362_2011_02562_x crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCGENETICS_110_938092 crossref_primary_10_1177_0272989X14547233 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_030234 crossref_primary_10_1038_ajh_2011_192 crossref_primary_10_1093_eurpub_ckx216 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_021_09143_2 crossref_primary_10_1093_aje_kwq211 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_017_0330_8 crossref_primary_10_2217_pgs_11_115 crossref_primary_10_1056_NEJMoa1012592 crossref_primary_10_1177_0306312719862049 crossref_primary_10_1097_MLR_0000000000000148 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIR_0000000000000223 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0140_6736_14_62070_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2014_005025 crossref_primary_10_1093_ije_dyr013 crossref_primary_10_1002_clc_22146 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40279_022_01698_9 crossref_primary_10_1177_0962280214567141 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_14013_3 crossref_primary_10_1530_EC_19_0182 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_6195 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_psychres_2024_116063 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10654_011_9551_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_atherosclerosis_2016_12_003 crossref_primary_10_1186_s41043_017_0114_0 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1445_5994_2010_02210_x crossref_primary_10_1200_JCO_2014_56_7503 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_4348 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13539_013_0107_9 crossref_primary_10_1001_jama_2019_22241 crossref_primary_10_1038_nrneph_2012_248 crossref_primary_10_5694_mja12_11054 crossref_primary_10_1093_aje_kwu143 crossref_primary_10_1186_gm230 crossref_primary_10_1161_HCG_0000000000000046 crossref_primary_10_1177_0961203314538332 crossref_primary_10_3109_10408363_2013_853025 crossref_primary_10_1093_jamia_ocz088 crossref_primary_10_1108_BIJ_06_2021_0369 crossref_primary_10_1177_1177271920946715 crossref_primary_10_1161_JAHA_116_004612 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0034287 crossref_primary_10_1093_ageing_afu159 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0036100 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11926_014_0415_x crossref_primary_10_1093_rheumatology_kex466 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijc_29323 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_atherosclerosis_2012_02_004 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41398_022_02190_8 crossref_primary_10_1586_erd_11_31 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eurger_2011_01_005 crossref_primary_10_1148_radiol_14130216 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_5328 crossref_primary_10_1515_CCLM_2010_340 crossref_primary_10_3109_15622975_2010_486842 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_2362_2011_02493_x crossref_primary_10_3389_fimmu_2024_1426127 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_5727 crossref_primary_10_2188_jea_JE20120157 crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000015340 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2261_13_90 crossref_primary_10_1002_hep_30797 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jaad_2024_11_066 crossref_primary_10_1210_jc_2016_1673 crossref_primary_10_1097_MOL_0000000000000095 crossref_primary_10_1038_ijo_2015_214 crossref_primary_10_1186_1741_7015_12_115 crossref_primary_10_1097_MPA_0b013e31820bf8ac crossref_primary_10_1161_ATVBAHA_112_300350 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_diabres_2015_04_015 crossref_primary_10_1161_RES_0b013e31824da8ad crossref_primary_10_1097_EDE_0b013e31826c3129 crossref_primary_10_1530_EJE_14_0464 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cmi_2022_07_019 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12872_018_0777_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbi_2023_03_011 crossref_primary_10_1177_0272989X13513654 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41416_018_0282_8 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1001216 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_8204 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11307_012_0586_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mehy_2010_08_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jana_2012_04_003 crossref_primary_10_1002_oby_20409 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1742_1241_2011_02633_x crossref_primary_10_1002_prca_201000096 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1001/jama.2009.1757 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1538-3598 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 19952321 |
| Genre | Journal Article Review |
| GroupedDBID | --- -ET -~X .55 .GJ .XZ 0R~ 0WA 186 18M 1KJ 1VV 29J 2CT 2FS 2KS 2WC 354 39C 4.4 53G 5GY 5RE 6TJ 85S AAIKC AAMNW AAQQT AAWTL AAYOK ABBLC ABCQX ABEFU ABEHJ ABIVO ABOCM ABPMR ABPPZ ABRSH ABWJO ACGFS ACNCT ACPRK ADBBV ADUKH AFCHL AFFNX AFHKK AFRAH AGFXO AGHSJ AHMBA ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMJDE ANMPU ARBJA BKOMP BRYMA C45 CGR CJ0 CS3 CUY CVF EAM EBS ECM EIF EJD EMOBN EX3 F5P GX1 HF~ J5H KOO KQ8 L7B MVM N4W N9A NEJ NHB NPM NYF OBH OCB OGEVE OHH OK1 OMK OVD P-O P2P PKN PQQKQ RAJ RNS SJN SV3 TEORI TN5 UBY UHB UIG UKR UMD UPT VVN WH7 WOW X7M XHN XJT XOL XSW XZL YCJ YFH YIF YIN YOC YPV YQJ YQT YQY YR2 YR5 YRY YSK YYM YZZ ZCA ZKG ZXP ~H1 7X8 ABUFD ACAHW ADXHL AETEA |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a435t-1e504147f5e3f27e988d6f9499ed8edbac1e74e7341f1e06b20c0d90c93242072 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 223 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000272239000023&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1538-3598 |
| IngestDate | Sun Nov 09 14:15:17 EST 2025 Wed Feb 19 01:49:01 EST 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 21 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a435t-1e504147f5e3f27e988d6f9499ed8edbac1e74e7341f1e06b20c0d90c93242072 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 |
| PMID | 19952321 |
| PQID | 733882423 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_733882423 pubmed_primary_19952321 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2009-12-02 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2009-12-02 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 12 year: 2009 text: 2009-12-02 day: 02 |
| PublicationDecade | 2000 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | JAMA |
| PublicationYear | 2009 |
| References | 20388888 - JAMA. 2010 Apr 14;303(14):1368-9; author reply 1369 20388889 - JAMA. 2010 Apr 14;303(14):1368; author reply 1369 19952326 - JAMA. 2009 Dec 2;302(21):2369-70 |
| References_xml | – reference: 20388888 - JAMA. 2010 Apr 14;303(14):1368-9; author reply 1369 – reference: 19952326 - JAMA. 2009 Dec 2;302(21):2369-70 – reference: 20388889 - JAMA. 2010 Apr 14;303(14):1368; author reply 1369 |
| SSID | ssj0000137 |
| Score | 2.4427917 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | With heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes.
To evaluate... With heightened interest in predictive medicine, many studies try to document information that can improve prediction of major clinical outcomes.CONTEXTWith... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 2345 |
| SubjectTerms | Coronary Disease Health Status Indicators Humans Models, Statistical Prognosis Reproducibility of Results Risk Assessment Risk Factors |
| Title | Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952321 https://www.proquest.com/docview/733882423 |
| Volume | 302 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000272239000023&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV07T8MwED4BRYiF96O85IE14DhNbE-oQlQMtOoAUrcofolKNClN4ffjc9OqC2JgiTwkUnS-8332nb8P4FZSaYwQGQqa0MhHoosUNjmmmttMswSlp4PYBB8MxGgkh01vTt20VS7XxLBQm0rjGfk993spgcn_YfoZoWgUFlcbBY1NaCUeyaBT85FYY48KlJkhppGobsnZuEY6JO98-uS_o8uQZXr7__y_A9hr4CXpLvzhEDZseQQ7_aaAfgwv3RUTJ6kc0R_FeFLjaBwOF6wh0xm-jNNFVLjdQjxEJB7fTnySey8mBJvRSY3slyfw1nt6fXyOGkGFqPCoaB7FNqWduMNdahPHuJVCmMwhPY01whpV6NjyjuU-s7nY0kwxqqmRVEuEXZSzU9gqq9KeA6GcFyZTfipdgnyTinIlmHIJp07GMm0DWZop9w6LVYiitNVXna8M1Yazhanz6YJYI8fr4h7hxRd_f3wJu6xRcqDsClrOB6u9hm39PR_Xs5vgCP45GPZ_ABJau_E |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+claims+of+improved+prediction+beyond+the+Framingham+risk+score&rft.jtitle=JAMA+%3A+the+journal+of+the+American+Medical+Association&rft.au=Tzoulaki%2C+Ioanna&rft.au=Liberopoulos%2C+George&rft.au=Ioannidis%2C+John+P+A&rft.date=2009-12-02&rft.issn=1538-3598&rft.eissn=1538-3598&rft.volume=302&rft.issue=21&rft.spage=2345&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001%2Fjama.2009.1757&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1538-3598&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1538-3598&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1538-3598&client=summon |