Application of the United States acute heart failure risk prediction model in Japanese patients; analysis from a contemporary multicenter registry

2015 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 323-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Makino ◽  
Shun Kohsaka ◽  
Yasuyuki Shiraishi ◽  
Taku Inohara ◽  
Ayumi Goda ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-780
Author(s):  
Alicia Uijl ◽  
Lars H. Lund ◽  
Gianluigi Savarese

2017 ◽  
Vol 248 ◽  
pp. 361-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Driscoll ◽  
Elizabeth H. Barnes ◽  
Stefan Blankenberg ◽  
David M. Colquhoun ◽  
David Hunt ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 540
Author(s):  
Ayman Elbadawi ◽  
Alexander Dang ◽  
Islam Elgendy ◽  
Ravi Thakker ◽  
Aiham Albaeni ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuecheng Zhang ◽  
Kehua Zhou ◽  
Jingjing Zhang ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Hengheng Dai ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Nearly a third of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) die or are readmitted within three months after discharge, accounting for the majority of costs associated with heart failure-related care. A considerable number of risk prediction models, which predict outcomes for mortality and readmission rates, have been developed and validated for patients with AHF. These models could help clinicians stratify patients by risk level and improve decision making, and provide specialist care and resources directed to high-risk patients. However, clinicians sometimes reluctant to utilize these models, possibly due to their poor reliability, the variety of models, and/or the complexity of statistical methodologies. Here, we describe a protocol to systematically review extant risk prediction models. We will describe characteristics, compare performance, and critically appraise the reporting transparency and methodological quality of risk prediction models for AHF patients. Method Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library will be searched from their inception onwards. A back word will be searched on derivation studies to find relevant external validation studies. Multivariable prognostic models used for AHF and mortality and/or readmission rate will be eligible for review. Two reviewers will conduct title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction independently. Included models will be summarized qualitatively and quantitatively. We will also provide an overview of critical appraisal of the methodological quality and reporting transparency of included studies using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool(PROBAST tool) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis(TRIPOD statement). Discussion The result of the systematic review could help clinicians better understand and use the prediction models for AHF patients, as well as make standardized decisions about more precise, risk-adjusted management. Systematic review registration : PROSPERO registration number CRD42021256416.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent A. Williams ◽  
Daniela Geba ◽  
Jeanine M. Cordova ◽  
Sharash S. Shetty

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. A9
Author(s):  
A.H. Gradman ◽  
F. Vekeman ◽  
A. Eldar-Lissai ◽  
A. Trahey ◽  
P. Lacomte ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document