Leiden University Scholarly Publications

Persistent URL of this record https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3562835

In Collections

This item can be found in the following collections:

Endt, V.H.W. van der; Milders, J.; Vries, B.B.L.P. de; Trines, S.A.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Dekkers, O.M.; ... ; Jong, Y. de (2022)

Comprehensive comparison of stroke risk score performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis among 6 267 728 patients with atrial fibrillation

Article / Letter to editor
Aims Multiple risk scores to predict ischaemic stroke (IS) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been developed. This study aims to systematically review these scores, their validations and updates, assess their methodological quality, and calculate pooled estimates of the predictive performance.Methods and results We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies developing, validating, or updating risk scores for IS in AF patients. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). To assess discrimination, pooled c-statistics were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 19 scores, which were validated and updated once or more in 70 and 40 studies, respectively, including 329 validations and 76 updates-nearly all on the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and CHADS(2). Pooled c-statistics were calculated among 6 267 728 patients and 359 373 events of IS. For the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and CHADS(2), pooled c-statistics were 0...Show moreAims Multiple risk scores to predict ischaemic stroke (IS) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been developed. This study aims to systematically review these scores, their validations and updates, assess their methodological quality, and calculate pooled estimates of the predictive performance.Methods and results We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies developing, validating, or updating risk scores for IS in AF patients. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). To assess discrimination, pooled c-statistics were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 19 scores, which were validated and updated once or more in 70 and 40 studies, respectively, including 329 validations and 76 updates-nearly all on the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and CHADS(2). Pooled c-statistics were calculated among 6 267 728 patients and 359 373 events of IS. For the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and CHADS(2), pooled c-statistics were 0.644 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.635-0.653] and 0.658 (0.644-0.672), respectively. Better discriminatory abilities were found in the newer risk scores, with the modified-CHADS(2) demonstrating the best discrimination [c-statistic 0.715 (0.674-0.754)]. Updates were found for the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and CHADS(2) only, showing improved discrimination. Calibration was reasonable but available for only 17 studies. The PROBAST indicated a risk of methodological bias in all studies.Conclusion Nineteen risk scores and 76 updates are available to predict IS in patients with AF. The guideline-endorsed CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc shows inferior discriminative abilities compared with newer scores. Additional external validations and data on calibration are required before considering the newer scores in clinical practice.Show less
Ischaemic stroke
Risk score
Atrial fibrillation
Meta-analysis
C-statistic
Discrimination
Predictive performance
Calibration
Prediction model
CHA2DS2-VASc
CHADS2
External validation
PROBAST
All authors
Endt, V.H.W. van der; Milders, J.; Vries, B.B.L.P. de; Trines, S.A.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Dekkers, O.M.; Trevisan, M.; Carrero, J.J.; Diepen, M. van; Dekker, F.W.; Jong, Y. de
Date
2022-07-27
Journal
EP Europace
Volume
24
Issue
11
Pages
1739 - 1753
DOI
doi:10.1093/europace/euac096