Are population-based diabetes models useful for individual risk estimation?

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 399-406

  Saver, Barry G ^a   Hargraves, J Lee ^a   Mazor, Kathleen M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Diabetes; Medical decision making

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN A1C;

ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; AMPUTATION; ARCHIMEDES BASED DIABETES PERSONAL HEALTH DECISIONS MODEL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIABETIC CARDIOMYOPATHY; DIABETIC NEPHROPATHY; DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; ETHNICITY; FEMALE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POPULATION MODEL; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STROKE; UNITED KINGDOM PROSPECTIVE DIABETES STUDY OUTCOMES MODEL;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DIABETES COMPLICATIONS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 79960181877     PISSN: 15572625     EISSN: 15587118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.04.110029     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Number (in millions) of civilian/noninstitutionalized persons with diagnosed diabetes, United States, 1980-2009. 10 March 2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/ prev/national/figpersons.htm. Accessed 18 May 2011.
2. Brown LC, Johnson JA, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, McAlister FA. Evidence of suboptimal management of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and symptomatic atherosclerosis. CMAJ 2004;171(10):1189-92. (Pubitemid 39518012)
3. Grant RW, Cagliero E, Murphy-Sheehy P, Singer DE, Nathan DM, Meigs JB. Comparison of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia management in patients with type 2 diabetes. Am J Med 2002;112(8):603-9. (Pubitemid 34597159)
4. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837-53.
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;317(7160):703-13.
6. Adler AI, Stratton IM, Neil HA, et al. Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321(7258):412-9. (Pubitemid 30609443)
7. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998;351(9118):1755-62. (Pubitemid 28269185)
8. Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia 2001;47(10):1747-59. (Pubitemid 40022410)
9. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes PHD. Available at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesphd/default.jsp. Accessed 12 April 2010.
10. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26(11):3093-101. (Pubitemid 37339504)
11. University of Oxford Diabetes Trials Unit, Health Economics Research Centre. UKPDS Outcomes Model User Manual, Version 1.3. Available at: http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/outcomesmodel/UKPDSOutcomesManual.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2011.
12. Stevens RJ, Kothari V, Adler AI, Stratton IM. The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci (Lond) 2001;101(6):671-9. (Pubitemid 33135349)
13. Muller-Riemenschneider F, Holmberg C, Rieckmann N, et al. Barriers to routine risk-score use for healthy primary care patients: survey and qualitative study. Arch Intern Med 2010;170(8):719-24.
14. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001;285(19):2486-97.
15. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002;106(25):3143-421.
16. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 2004;110(2):227-39. (Pubitemid 38924592)
17. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;150(6):396-404.
18. Coleman RL, Stevens RJ, Retnakaran R, Holman RR. Framingham, SCORE, and DECODE risk equations do not provide reliable cardiovascular risk estimates in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30(5):1292-3.
19. Guzder RN, Gatling W, Mullee MA, Mehta RL, Byrne CD. Prognostic value of the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation and the UKPDS risk engine for coronary heart disease in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: results from a United Kingdom study. Diabet Med 2005;22(5):554-62. (Pubitemid 40593130)
20. Fiscella K, Tancredi D, Franks P. Adding socioeconomic status to Framingham scoring to reduce disparities in coronary risk assessment. Am Heart J 2009;157(6):988-94.
21. Tzoulaki I, Liberopoulos G, Ioannidis JP. Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. JAMA 2009 ;302(21):2345-52.
22. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 2008;336(7659):1475-82. (Pubitemid 351977019)
23. Archimedes Inc. Accuracy and validations. San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://archimedesmodel.com/sites/default/files/Archimedes-Model-Validations- 0511.pdf. Accessed 6/8/11.
24. Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJ, van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med 2004;23(16):2567-86. (Pubitemid 39149268)
25. The Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care 2007;30(6):1638-46.
26. Lemeshow S, Klar J, Teres D. Outcome prediction for individual intensive care patients: useful, misused, or abused? Intensive Care Med 1995;21(9):770-6.
27. Stern RH. The discordance of individual risk estimates and the reference class problem. Ann Arbor, MI: CVC Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.2499v1. Accessed 18 May 2011.
28. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Validation of the archimedes diabetes model. Diabetes Care 2003;26(11):3102-10. (Pubitemid 37339505)
29. Stern M, Williams K, Eddy D, Kahn R. Validation of prediction of diabetes by the archimedes model and comparison with other predicting models. Diabetes Care 2008;31(8):1670-1.
30. Brindle P, Beswick A, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Heart 2006;92(12):1752-9. (Pubitemid 44851316)
31. Yang X, So WY, Kong AP, et al. Development and validation of a total coronary heart disease risk score in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2008;101(5):596-601. (Pubitemid 351635559)
32. van Dieren S, Peelen LM, Nothlings U, et al. External validation of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2011;54(2):264-70.
33. Davis WA, Colagiuri S, Davis TM. Comparison of the Framingham and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study cardiovascular risk equations in Australian patients with type 2 diabetes from the Fremantle Diabetes Study. Med J Aust 2009;190(4):180-4.
34. Berger JS, Jordan CO, Lloyd-Jones D, Blumenthal RS. Screening for cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55(12):1169-77.
35. Mohan AV, Mohan CP, Balaban R. Responses to USPSTF guideline on aspirin for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(8):587-8.
36. Sheridan SL, Viera AJ, Krantz MJ, et al. The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2010;170(3):230-9.
37. Parkes G, Greenhalgh T, Griffin M, Dent R. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the Step2quit randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008;336(7644):598-600. (Pubitemid 351439517)
38. Mann DM, Ponieman D, Montori VM, Arciniega J, McGinn T. The Statin Choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns 2010;80(1):138-40.
39. O'Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen J, Johnson PE, Rush WA, Crain AL. Customized feedback to patients and providers failed to improve safety or quality of diabetes care: a randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2009;32(7):1158-63.
40. Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 1999;130(6):515-24. (Pubitemid 29135805)
41. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010;21(1):128-38.