ObjeCtiveTo provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.Design Systematic review. Data sOurCesMedline 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. COnClusiOnsThere 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. IntroductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, 1 accounting for approximately one third of all deaths. 2 Prevention of CVD requires timely identification of people at increased risk to target effective dietary, lifestyle, or drug interventions. Over the past two decades, numerous prediction models have been developed, which mathematically combine multiple predictors to estimate the risk of developing CVD-for example, the Framingham, 3-5 SCORE, 6 and QRISK 7-9 models. Some of these prediction models are included in clinical guidelines for therapeutic management 10 11 and are increasingly advocated by health policymakers. In the United Kingdom, electronic health patient record systems now have QRISK2 embedded to calculate 10 year CVD risk.Several reviews have shown that there is an abundance of prediction models for a wide range of CVD outcomes. 12-14 However, the most comprehensive review 12 includes models published ...

No abstract

ObjectiveTo determine whether an injection of platelet rich plasma improves outcomes after acute Achilles tendon rupture.DesignRandomised, placebo controlled, two arm, parallel group, participant and assessor masked, superiority trial.SettingSecondary care trauma units across 19 hospitals in the United Kingdom’s health service.ParticipantsRecruitment commenced in July 2015 and follow-up was completed in March 2018. 230 adults aged 18 years and over were included, with acute Achilles tendon rupture presenting within 12 days of injury and managed with non-surgical treatment. Exclusions were injury at the insertion or musculotendinous junction, major leg injury or deformity, diabetes mellitus, platelet or haematological disorder, systemic corticosteroids, anticoagulation treatment, and other contraindicating conditions.InterventionsParticipants were randomised 1:1 to platelet rich plasma (n=114) or placebo (dry needle; n=116) injection. All participants received standard rehabilitation care (ankle immobilisation followed by physiotherapy).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was muscle tendon function at 24 weeks, measured objectively with the limb symmetry index (injured/uninjured×100) in maximal work done during the heel rise endurance test (an instrumented measure of repeated single leg heel rises until fatigue). Secondary outcomes included patient reported function (Achilles tendon rupture score), quality of life (short form 12 version 2®), pain (visual analogue scale), goal attainment (patient specific functional scale), and adverse events. A central laboratory analysed the quality and content of platelet rich plasma. Analyses were by modified intention to treat.ResultsParticipants were 46 years old on average, and 57 (25%) of 230 were female. At 24 weeks, 202 (88%) participants completed the heel rise endurance test and 216 (94%) the patient reported outcomes. The platelet rich plasma was of good quality, with expected growth factor content. No difference was detected in muscle tendon function between participants receiving platelet rich plasma injections and those receiving placebo injections (limb symmetry index, mean 34.7% (standard deviation 17.7%) v 38.5% (22.8%); adjusted mean difference −3.9% (95% confidence interval −10.5% to 2.7%)) or in any secondary outcomes or adverse event rates. Complier average causal effect analyses gave similar findings.ConclusionsThere is no evidence to indicate that injections of platelet rich plasma can improve objective muscle tendon function, patient reported function, or quality of life after acute Achilles tendon rupture compared with placebo, or that they offer any patient benefit.Trial registrationISRCTN54992179.