No abstract

Background Clinical prediction models (CPMs) estimate the probability of clinical outcomes and hold the potential to improve decision making and individualize care. For patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) there are numerous CPMs available though the extent of this literature is not well described. Methods and Results We conducted a systematic review for articles containing CPMs for CVD published between January 1990 through May 2012. CVD includes coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), arrhythmias, stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). We created a novel database and characterized CPMs based on the stage of development, population under study, performance, covariates, and predicted outcomes. There are 796 models included in this database. The number of CPMs published each year is increasing steadily over time. 717 (90%) are de novo CPMs, 21 (3%) are CPM recalibrations, and 58 (7%) are CPM adaptations. This database contains CPMs for 31 index conditions including 215 CPMs for patients with CAD, 168 CPMs for population samples, and 79 models for patients with HF. There are 77 distinct index/ outcome (I/O) pairings. Of the de novo models in this database 450 (63%) report a c-statistic and 259 (36%) report some information on calibration. Conclusions There is an abundance of CPMs available for a wide assortment of CVD conditions, with substantial redundancy in the literature. The comparative performance of these models, the consistency of effects and risk estimates across models and the actual and potential clinical impact of this body of literature is poorly understood.

The contingent valuation literature in diagnostics has grown rapidly, and suggests that many respondents place considerable value on diagnostic information. There exists, however, great variation in studies with respect to the type of technologies and diseases assessed, respondent characteristics, and study methodology. The perceived value of diagnostic technologies is also influenced by the study design and elicitation methods.

The evidence of both clinical and economic gains from EN is consistent with ASPEN guidelines recommending use of EN in critically ill hospital patients when possible.