MADCAP: a graphical method for assessing risk scoring systems

被引:6
|
作者
Gallivan, S [1 ]
Utley, M
Pagano, D
Treasure, T
机构
[1] UCL, Clin Operat Res Unit, London, England
[2] Univ Hosp Birmingham, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[3] Guys Hosp, Sch Med, London SE1 9RT, England
[4] St Thomas Hosp, Sch Med, London, England
关键词
risk models; audit; cardiac surgery; mortality;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.12.057
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: We set out to develop a method for assessing the performance of clinical risk models over the spectrum of risks and to assess the performance of the EuroSCORE risk model used in cardiac surgery. Methods: We developed a graphical method for assessing the performance of clinical risk models over the spectrum of risks. To illustrate the technique, we analysed retrospective data concerning 9268 patients that underwent cardiac surgery and for whom both the additive EuroSCORE prediction of risk of morality and vital status at 30 days were available. Results: The graphical tool developed, called MADCAP (Mean Adjusted Deaths Compared Against Predictions), can be used to highlight systematic features of the performance of a clinical risk model. Its use in the current study indicates that the additive version of the EuroSCORE model seems to underestimate risk amongst tow-risk cases (0% and 1%). Otherwise the score systematically favours risk avoiding behaviour as the risk model underestimates mortality for 2-6% prediction but not at 7% and above. Conclusion: The robustness of case-mix adjusted audit is dependent on the performance of the risk scoring system over the entire spectrum of risk. If we are to use risk adjustment of mortality rates when comparing outcomes obtained by different units or individual surgeons, it is essential that we continually review the performance of the risk adjustment method. The MADCAP method presented here provides a useful toot to this end. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:431 / 433
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Validity of conventional scoring systems assessing nutritional status of hemodialysis patients
    Krauer, C.
    Dorfschmid, M.
    Raez, H. -R.
    Corsenca, A.
    Wuethrich, R. P.
    Wahl, P.
    Ambuehl, P.
    SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY, 2008, 138 (47-48) : 19S - 20S
  • [42] Estimating Cardiometabolic Risk Using Existing Scoring Systems
    Gurka, Matthew J.
    Filipp, Stephanie L.
    Pearson, Thomas A.
    Deboer, Mark D.
    DIABETES, 2018, 67
  • [43] Reply to: Risk scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal bleeding
    Dicu, Daniela
    Ionescu, Daniela
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2013, 31 (06): : 986 - 986
  • [44] Comparison of two scoring systems for assessment of cardiovascular risk
    Smith, RD
    Cooke, L
    Ferrario, CM
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2005, 18 (05) : 151A - 151A
  • [45] Risk scoring systems in colorectal surgery—future factors
    Aninda Chandra
    Tarun Singhal
    Biju Aravind
    Catherine Bryant
    Sudhakar Mangam
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2009, 24 : 1477 - 1477
  • [46] Scoring systems and risk assessment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding
    Ch'ng, CL
    Kingham, JGC
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2001, 13 (10) : 1137 - 1139
  • [47] Risk-adjusted scoring systems in colorectal surgery
    Leung, Edmund
    McArdle, Kirsten
    Wong, Ling S.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 9 (02) : 130 - 135
  • [48] Comparison of risk scoring systems in congenital heart surgery
    Sabuncu, Timucin
    Demircin, Metin
    Dogan, Riza
    Yilmaz, Mustafa
    Aypar, Ulku
    Pasaoglu, Ilhan
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2016, 58 (05) : 512 - 517
  • [49] Cardiac surgery risk scoring systems: In quest for the best
    Hote, Milind
    HEART ASIA, 2018, 10 (01)
  • [50] Scoring Systems for Estimating the Risk of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism
    Nichele, Ilaria
    Tosetto, Alberto
    SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS, 2017, 43 (05): : 493 - 499