Predicting the risk of stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of C-statistics

Abstract

ObjectiveStroke is a major cause of disability and death worldwide. People with diabetes are at a twofold to fivefold increased risk for stroke compared with people without diabetes. This study systematically reviews the literature on available stroke prediction models specifically developed or validated in patients with diabetes and assesses their predictive performance through meta-analysis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA detailed search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE (from inception to 22 April 2019) to identify studies describing stroke prediction models.Eligibility criteriaAll studies that developed stroke prediction models in populations with diabetes were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently identified eligible articles and extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain a pooled C-statistic.ResultsOur search retrieved 26 202 relevant papers and finally yielded 38 stroke prediction models, of which 34 were specifically developed for patients with diabetes and 4 were developed in general populations but validated in patients with diabetes. Among the models developed in those with diabetes, 9 reported their outcome as stroke, 23 reported their outcome as composite cardiovascular disease (CVD) where stroke was a component of the outcome and 2 did not report stroke initially as their outcome but later were validated for stroke as the outcome in other studies. C-statistics varied from 0.60 to 0.92 with a median C-statistic of 0.71 (for stroke as the outcome) and 0.70 (for stroke as part of a composite CVD outcome). Seventeen models were externally validated in diabetes populations with a pooled C-statistic of 0.68.ConclusionsOverall, the performance of these diabetes-specific stroke prediction models was not satisfactory. Research is needed to identify and incorporate new risk factors into the model to improve models’ predictive ability and further external validation of the existing models in diverse population to improve generalisability.

Prediction of hypertension using traditional regression and machine learning models: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…While it is widely perceived that the English language is the primary language of science, the choice of scientific results in a particular language can incorporate language bias and may lead to incorrect conclusions [ 39 ]. We were only able to use C-statistics to compare the model performance, which could be insensitive to distinguish a model’s ability to correctly stratify patients into clinically relevant risk groups [ 39 , 40 ]. Calibration was quantified by different measures, and different studies often reported different calibration measures.…”

Precision prognostics for the development of complications in diabetes

“…Among models predicting absolute risk of macrovascular complications [28][29][30], the majority originate from study samples located in Europe (the UK Prospective Diabetes Study [UKPDS] risk engines and outcomes models 1&2 [31][32][33][34], Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation [ADVANCE] model [35] and two Swedish National Diabetes Register [NDR] models [36,37]) or the USA and/or Canada (e.g. RECODe models [14], the Cardiovascular Health Study [CHS] score [38] and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] model [39]).…”

TRACK (by NEHEP) Implementation: A Bangladesh Scenario

“…Approximately one-third of all stroke patients have diabetes [119]. People with diabetes are at a twofold to fivefold increased risk for stroke compared with people without diabetes [120].…”