Background: Cardiovascular risk scales in hypertensive populations have limitations for clinical practice. Aims: To develop and internally validate a predictive model to estimate one-year cardiovascular risk for hypertensive patients admitted to hospital. Methods: Cohort study of 303 hypertensive patients admitted through the Emergency Department in a Spanish region in 2015–2017. The main variable was the onset of cardiovascular disease during follow-up. The secondary variables were: gender, age, educational level, family history of cardiovascular disease, Charlson score and its individual conditions, living alone, quality of life, smoking, blood pressure, physical activity and adherence to the Mediterranean diet. A Cox regression model was constructed to predict cardiovascular disease one year after admission. This was then adapted to a points system, externally validated by bootstrapping (discrimination and calibration) and implemented in a mobile application for Android. Results: A total of 93 patients developed cardiovascular disease (30.7%) over a mean period of 1.68 years. The predictors in the points system were: gender, age, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and daily activity (quality of life). The internal validation by bootstrapping was satisfactory. Conclusion: A novel points system was developed to predict short-term cardiovascular disease in hypertensive patients after hospital admission. External validation studies are needed to corroborate the results obtained.

Background: Sepsis is associated with high mortality and predictive models can help in clinical decision-making. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of these models. Methods:In 2019, we conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE (CDR42018111121:PROSPERO) of articles that developed predictive models for mortality in septic patients (inclusion criteria). We followed the CHARMS recommendations (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies), extracting the information from its 11 domains (Source of data, Participants, etc). We determined the risk of bias and applicability (participants, outcome, predictors and analysis) through PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool).Results: A total of 14 studies were included. In the CHARMS extraction, the models found showed great variability in its 11 domains. Regarding the PROBAST checklist, only one article had an unclear risk of bias as it did not indicate how missing data were handled while the others all had a high risk of bias. This was mainly due to the statistical analysis (inadequate sample size, handling of continuous predictors, missing data and selection of predictors), since 13 studies had a high risk of bias. Applicability was satisfactory in six articles. Most of the models integrate predictors from routine clinical practice. Discrimination and calibration were assessed for almost all the models, with the area under the ROC curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.955 and no lack of calibration. Only three models were externally validated and their maximum discrimination values in the derivation were from 0.712 and 0.84. One of them (Osborn) had undergone multiple validation studies.Discussion: Despite most of the studies showing a high risk of bias, we very cautiously recommend applying the Osborn model, as this has been externally validated various times.

The CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist was created to provide methodological appraisals of predictive models, based on the best available scientific evidence and through systematic reviews. Our purpose is to give a general presentation on how to carry out a CHARMS analysis for prognostic multivariate models, making clear what the steps are and how they are applied individually to the studies included in the systematic review. This tutorial is aimed at providing such a resource. In addition to this explanation, we will apply the method to a real case: predictive models of atrial fibrillation in the community. This methodology could be applied to other predictive models using the steps provided in our review so as to have complete information for each included model and determine whether it can be implemented in daily clinical practice.

No abstract