IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0310321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Jong-Wook Ban
  • Lucy Abel
  • Richard Stevens
  • Rafael Perera

Abstract

Background: External validation studies create evidence about a clinical prediction rule’s (CPR’s) generalizability by evaluating and updating the CPR in populations different from those used in the derivation, and also by contributing to estimating its overall performance when meta-analysed in a systematic review. While most cardiovascular CPRs do not have any external validation, some CPRs have been externally validated repeatedly. Hence, we examined whether external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease (CHD) risk rule contributed to generating evidence to their full potential. Methods: A forward citation search of the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule’s derivation study was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule in different populations. For external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule, we examined whether authors updated the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule when it performed poorly. We also assessed the contribution of external validation studies to understanding the Predicted/Observed (P/O) event ratio and c statistic of the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule. Results: We identified 98 studies that evaluated the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule; 40 of which were external validation studies. Of these 40 studies, 27 (67.5%) concluded the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule performed poorly but did not update it. Of 23 external validation studies conducted with data that could be included in meta-analyses, 13 (56.5%) could not fully contribute to the meta-analyses of P/O ratio and/or c statistic because these performance measures were neither reported nor could be calculated from provided data. Discussion: Most external validation studies failed to generate evidence about the Framingham Wilson CHD risk rule’s generalizability to their full potential. Researchers might increase the value of external validation studies by presenting all relevant performance measures and by updating the CPR when it performs poorly.

Suggested Citation

  • Jong-Wook Ban & Lucy Abel & Richard Stevens & Rafael Perera, 2024. "Research inefficiencies in external validation studies of the Framingham Wilson coronary heart disease risk rule: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-21, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310321
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310321
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310321&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0310321?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.