• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (44)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders  • Lipids and Lipid Disorders  • Cardiovascular System  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Diagnosis  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Clinician's Guide

Kevin McGeechan, MBiostat; Petra Macaskill, PhD; Les Irwig, MBBCh, PhD; Gerald Liew, MBBS, MMed; Tien Y. Wong, MD, PhD

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(21):2304-2310.

New biomarkers and predictive models that aim to improve the identification of people at risk of cardiovascular disease are constantly proposed. Clinicians need to be aware of the various methods used to assess these biomarkers and models and how these should be interpreted. New biomarkers and models are assessed in terms of their contribution to global fit, discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. These measures, when used in isolation, do not address the clinically important questions of whether the new model predicts risk more accurately than existing models and whether the risks predicted for individuals are sufficiently different to warrant a change in treatment decisions. We recommend that these measures be supplemented with graphical displays such as a calibration plot for the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and a scatterplot of the risks predicted by the models being compared. We encourage researchers to report such analyses from studies on the clinical utility of new biomarkers because this information is pertinent for the clinician who must decide whether to test for a new biomarker in their clinical practice.

Author Affiliations: Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health (Mr McGeechan and Drs Macaskill and Irwig) and Centre for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Westmead Millennium Institute (Dr Liew), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; and Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and Singapore Eye Research Institute, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore (Dr Wong).

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Cardiovascular Risk Stratification, Hemoglobin A1c, and the Tempo of Translation: Comment on "Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Diabetic Men and Women Using Hemoglobin A1c vs Diabetes as a High-Risk Equivalent"
Pletcher
Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1718-1720.
FULL TEXT  

Integrating Information From Novel Risk Factors With Calculated Risks: The Critical Impact of Risk Factor Prevalence
Kooter et al.
Circulation 2011;124:741-745.
FULL TEXT  

Traditional Risk Factors for Incident Cardiovascular Events Have Limited Importance in Later Life Compared With the Health in Men Study Cardiovascular Risk Score
Beer et al.
Stroke 2011;42:952-959.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating the Clinical Utility of a Biomarker: A Review of Methods for Estimating Health Impact
Pletcher and Pignone
Circulation 2011;123:1116-1124.
FULL TEXT  

Assessment of multiple cardiac biomarkers in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: observations from the MERLIN-TIMI 36 Trial
Scirica et al.
Eur Heart J 2011;32:697-705.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

High-Sensitivity ST2 for Prediction of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure
Ky et al.
Circ Heart Fail 2011;4:180-187.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Retinal Vessel Diameter as a Clinical Predictor of Diabetic Retinopathy Progression: Time to Take Out the Measuring Tape
Wong
Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:95-96.
FULL TEXT  

Assessment of Clinical Validity of a Breast Cancer Risk Model Combining Genetic and Clinical Information
Mealiffe et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1618-1627.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Derivation and Validation of a New Cardiovascular Risk Score for People With Type 2 Diabetes: The New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study
Elley et al.
Diabetes Care 2010;33:1347-1352.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

An independent and external validation of QRISK2 cardiovascular disease risk score: a prospective open cohort study
Collins and Altman
BMJ 2010;340:c2442-c2442.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Multimarker Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Risk: The Women's Health Initiative
Kim et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2080-2091.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Statistical methods for the assessment of prognostic biomarkers (Part I): Discrimination
Tripepi et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:1399-1401.
FULL TEXT  

Statistical methods for the assessment of prognostic biomarkers(part II): calibration and re-classification
Tripepi et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:1402-1405.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparative Validity of 3 Diabetes Mellitus Risk Prediction Scoring Models in a Multiethnic US Cohort: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis
Mann et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:980-988.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Acute Coronary Syndrome: Emerging Tools for Diagnosis and Risk Assessment
Scirica
J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1403-1415.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Potential of Genes and Other Markers to Inform about Risk
Pepe et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:655-665.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessment of Improved Prediction Beyond Traditional Risk Factors: When Does a Difference Make a Difference?
Janssens and Khoury
Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010;3:3-5.
FULL TEXT  

A Comparison of Prediction Models for Fractures in Older Women: Is More Better?
Ensrud et al.
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2087-2094.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessment of Claims of Improved Prediction Beyond the Framingham Risk Score
Tzoulaki et al.
JAMA 2009;302:2345-2352.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prediction of Incident Stroke Events Based on Retinal Vessel Caliber: A Systematic Review and Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis
McGeechan et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2009;170:1323-1332.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Report Card on Growth Differentiation Factor 15: Consistent Marks But Not Yet Ready for Promotion
Rohatgi and de Lemos
Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2009;2:209-211.
FULL TEXT  

Are Risk Stratification Tables the Best Way to Evaluate Model Performance?
Stern and Smith
ANN INTERN MED 2009;150:427-428.
FULL TEXT  

Commentary: C-reactive protein and risk prediction--moving beyond associations to assessing predictive utility and clinical usefulness
Vasan
Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:231-234.
FULL TEXT