Risk Models to Predict Hypertension

A Systematic Review

Justin Echouffo Tcheugui, G. David Batty, Mika Kivimäki, Andre P. Kengne

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background:As well as being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension is also a health condition in its own right. Risk prediction models may be of value in identifying those individuals at risk of developing hypertension who are likely to benefit most from interventions.Methods and Findings:To synthesize existing evidence on the performance of these models, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE; examined bibliographies of retrieved articles; contacted experts in the field; and searched our own files. Dual review of identified studies was conducted. Included studies had to report on the development, validation, or impact analysis of a hypertension risk prediction model. For each publication, information was extracted on study design and characteristics, predictors, model discrimination, calibration and reclassification ability, validation and impact analysis. Eleven studies reporting on 15 different hypertension prediction risk models were identified. Age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, and blood pressure variables were the most common predictor variables included in models. Most risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory ability (C-statistic>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall acceptable. Two hypertension risk models, the Framingham and Hopkins, have been externally validated, displaying acceptable-to-good discrimination, and C-statistic ranging from 0.71 to 0.81. Lack of individual-level data precluded analyses of the risk models in subgroups.Conclusions:The discrimination ability of existing hypertension risk prediction tools is acceptable, but the impact of using these tools on prescriptions and outcomes of hypertension prevention is unclear.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere67370
JournalPLoS One
Volume8
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 5 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

systematic review
hypertension
Hypertension
prediction
Calibration
calibration
statistics
Statistics
Bibliography
risk groups
Blood pressure
Bibliographies
MEDLINE
Medical problems
taxonomic revisions
Prescriptions
Publications
cardiovascular diseases
Body Mass Index
blood pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Risk Models to Predict Hypertension : A Systematic Review. / Echouffo Tcheugui, Justin; Batty, G. David; Kivimäki, Mika; Kengne, Andre P.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 8, No. 7, e67370, 05.07.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Echouffo Tcheugui, Justin ; Batty, G. David ; Kivimäki, Mika ; Kengne, Andre P. / Risk Models to Predict Hypertension : A Systematic Review. In: PLoS One. 2013 ; Vol. 8, No. 7.
@article{b9ac81ab9c0941a3ab17de2695b1164c,
title = "Risk Models to Predict Hypertension: A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Background:As well as being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension is also a health condition in its own right. Risk prediction models may be of value in identifying those individuals at risk of developing hypertension who are likely to benefit most from interventions.Methods and Findings:To synthesize existing evidence on the performance of these models, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE; examined bibliographies of retrieved articles; contacted experts in the field; and searched our own files. Dual review of identified studies was conducted. Included studies had to report on the development, validation, or impact analysis of a hypertension risk prediction model. For each publication, information was extracted on study design and characteristics, predictors, model discrimination, calibration and reclassification ability, validation and impact analysis. Eleven studies reporting on 15 different hypertension prediction risk models were identified. Age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, and blood pressure variables were the most common predictor variables included in models. Most risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory ability (C-statistic>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall acceptable. Two hypertension risk models, the Framingham and Hopkins, have been externally validated, displaying acceptable-to-good discrimination, and C-statistic ranging from 0.71 to 0.81. Lack of individual-level data precluded analyses of the risk models in subgroups.Conclusions:The discrimination ability of existing hypertension risk prediction tools is acceptable, but the impact of using these tools on prescriptions and outcomes of hypertension prevention is unclear.",
author = "{Echouffo Tcheugui}, Justin and Batty, {G. David} and Mika Kivim{\"a}ki and Kengne, {Andre P.}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0067370",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk Models to Predict Hypertension

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Echouffo Tcheugui, Justin

AU - Batty, G. David

AU - Kivimäki, Mika

AU - Kengne, Andre P.

PY - 2013/7/5

Y1 - 2013/7/5

N2 - Background:As well as being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension is also a health condition in its own right. Risk prediction models may be of value in identifying those individuals at risk of developing hypertension who are likely to benefit most from interventions.Methods and Findings:To synthesize existing evidence on the performance of these models, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE; examined bibliographies of retrieved articles; contacted experts in the field; and searched our own files. Dual review of identified studies was conducted. Included studies had to report on the development, validation, or impact analysis of a hypertension risk prediction model. For each publication, information was extracted on study design and characteristics, predictors, model discrimination, calibration and reclassification ability, validation and impact analysis. Eleven studies reporting on 15 different hypertension prediction risk models were identified. Age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, and blood pressure variables were the most common predictor variables included in models. Most risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory ability (C-statistic>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall acceptable. Two hypertension risk models, the Framingham and Hopkins, have been externally validated, displaying acceptable-to-good discrimination, and C-statistic ranging from 0.71 to 0.81. Lack of individual-level data precluded analyses of the risk models in subgroups.Conclusions:The discrimination ability of existing hypertension risk prediction tools is acceptable, but the impact of using these tools on prescriptions and outcomes of hypertension prevention is unclear.

AB - Background:As well as being a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension is also a health condition in its own right. Risk prediction models may be of value in identifying those individuals at risk of developing hypertension who are likely to benefit most from interventions.Methods and Findings:To synthesize existing evidence on the performance of these models, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE; examined bibliographies of retrieved articles; contacted experts in the field; and searched our own files. Dual review of identified studies was conducted. Included studies had to report on the development, validation, or impact analysis of a hypertension risk prediction model. For each publication, information was extracted on study design and characteristics, predictors, model discrimination, calibration and reclassification ability, validation and impact analysis. Eleven studies reporting on 15 different hypertension prediction risk models were identified. Age, sex, body mass index, diabetes status, and blood pressure variables were the most common predictor variables included in models. Most risk models had acceptable-to-good discriminatory ability (C-statistic>0.70) in the derivation sample. Calibration was less commonly assessed, but overall acceptable. Two hypertension risk models, the Framingham and Hopkins, have been externally validated, displaying acceptable-to-good discrimination, and C-statistic ranging from 0.71 to 0.81. Lack of individual-level data precluded analyses of the risk models in subgroups.Conclusions:The discrimination ability of existing hypertension risk prediction tools is acceptable, but the impact of using these tools on prescriptions and outcomes of hypertension prevention is unclear.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879832416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879832416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0067370

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0067370

M3 - Review article

VL - 8

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 7

M1 - e67370

ER -