A framework for quantifying net benefits of alternative prognostic models

Article English OPEN
Rapsomaniki, E.; White, I.R.; Wood, A.M.; Thompson, S.G.; Ford, I.;
  • Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1002/sim.4362
  • Subject: cost-effectiveness | cardiovascular disease | net benefit | screening strategies | meta-analysis | competing risks | R1

New prognostic models are traditionally evaluated using measures of discrimination and risk reclassification, but these do not take full account of the clinical and health economic context. We propose a framework for comparing prognostic models by quantifying the public... View more
  • References (37)
    37 references, page 1 of 4

    1. Pyorala K, De Backer G, Graham I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology, European Atherosclerosis Society and European Society of Hypertension. European Heart Journal 1994; 15:1300-31.

    2. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15:361-387. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4.

    3. Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007; 115:928-935. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.672402.

    4. Ridker PM, Buring JE, Rifai N, Cook NR. Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: The Reynolds risk score. Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 297:611-9. DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.12.1376.

    5. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino Sr RB, D'Agostino Jr RB, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:157-172. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929.

    6. Chambless LE, Cummiskey CP, Cui G. Several methods to assess improvement in risk prediction models: Extension to survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 30:22-38. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4026.

    7. Steyerberg EW, Pencina MJ. Reclassification calculations with incomplete follow-up. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010; 152:195-196. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-152-3-201002020-00019.

    8. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, Pencina MJ, Kattane MW. Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010; 21:128-138. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2.

    9. Greenland S. The need for reorientation toward cost-effective prediction: Comments on 'Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond' by M. J. Pencina et al., Statistics in Medicine (DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929). Statistics in Medicine 2007; 27:199-206. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2995.

    10. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino Sr RB, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(1):11-21. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4085.

  • Metrics
Share - Bookmark