Cargando…

Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review

This study aimed to systematically review the use of clinical prediction models (CPMs) in personalised lifestyle interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for articles describing relevant studies published up to August 1, 2021. These were supplemente...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bruninx, Anke, Scheenstra, Bart, Dekker, Andre, Maessen, Jos, van 't Hof, Arnoud, Kietselaer, Bas, Bermejo, Iñigo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8800044/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35127352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101672
_version_ 1784642179414622208
author Bruninx, Anke
Scheenstra, Bart
Dekker, Andre
Maessen, Jos
van 't Hof, Arnoud
Kietselaer, Bas
Bermejo, Iñigo
author_facet Bruninx, Anke
Scheenstra, Bart
Dekker, Andre
Maessen, Jos
van 't Hof, Arnoud
Kietselaer, Bas
Bermejo, Iñigo
author_sort Bruninx, Anke
collection PubMed
description This study aimed to systematically review the use of clinical prediction models (CPMs) in personalised lifestyle interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for articles describing relevant studies published up to August 1, 2021. These were supplemented with items retrieved via screening references of citations and cited by references. In total, 32 studies were included. Nineteen different CPMs were used to guide the intervention. Most frequently, a version of the Framingham risk score was used. The CPM was used to inform the intensity of the intervention in five studies (16 %), and the intervention’s type in 31 studies (97 %). The CPM was supplemented with relative risk estimates for additional risk factors in three studies (9 %), and relative risk estimates for intervention effects in four (13 %). In addition to the estimated risk, the personalisation was determined using criteria based on univariable risk factors in 18 studies (56 %), a lifestyle score in three (9 %), and a physical examination index in one (3 %). We noted insufficient detail in reporting regarding the CPM’s use in 20 studies (63 %). In 15 studies (47 %), the primary outcome was a CPM estimate. A statistically significant effect favouring the intervention to the comparator arm was reported in four out of eight analyses (50 %), and a statistically significant improvement compared to baseline in five out of seven analyses (71 %). Due to the design of the included studies, the effect of the use of CPMs is still unclear. Therefore, we see a need for future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8800044
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88000442022-02-03 Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review Bruninx, Anke Scheenstra, Bart Dekker, Andre Maessen, Jos van 't Hof, Arnoud Kietselaer, Bas Bermejo, Iñigo Prev Med Rep Review Article This study aimed to systematically review the use of clinical prediction models (CPMs) in personalised lifestyle interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for articles describing relevant studies published up to August 1, 2021. These were supplemented with items retrieved via screening references of citations and cited by references. In total, 32 studies were included. Nineteen different CPMs were used to guide the intervention. Most frequently, a version of the Framingham risk score was used. The CPM was used to inform the intensity of the intervention in five studies (16 %), and the intervention’s type in 31 studies (97 %). The CPM was supplemented with relative risk estimates for additional risk factors in three studies (9 %), and relative risk estimates for intervention effects in four (13 %). In addition to the estimated risk, the personalisation was determined using criteria based on univariable risk factors in 18 studies (56 %), a lifestyle score in three (9 %), and a physical examination index in one (3 %). We noted insufficient detail in reporting regarding the CPM’s use in 20 studies (63 %). In 15 studies (47 %), the primary outcome was a CPM estimate. A statistically significant effect favouring the intervention to the comparator arm was reported in four out of eight analyses (50 %), and a statistically significant improvement compared to baseline in five out of seven analyses (71 %). Due to the design of the included studies, the effect of the use of CPMs is still unclear. Therefore, we see a need for future research. 2021-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8800044/ /pubmed/35127352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101672 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review Article
Bruninx, Anke
Scheenstra, Bart
Dekker, Andre
Maessen, Jos
van 't Hof, Arnoud
Kietselaer, Bas
Bermejo, Iñigo
Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review
title Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review
title_full Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review
title_fullStr Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review
title_full_unstemmed Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review
title_short Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review
title_sort using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: a systematic literature review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8800044/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35127352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101672
work_keys_str_mv AT bruninxanke usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview
AT scheenstrabart usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview
AT dekkerandre usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview
AT maessenjos usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview
AT vanthofarnoud usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview
AT kietselaerbas usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview
AT bermejoinigo usingclinicalpredictionmodelstopersonaliselifestyleinterventionsforcardiovasculardiseasepreventionasystematicliteraturereview