Table 1 Accuracy of Risk Scores or Risk Prediction Models
From: Application and risk prediction of thrombolytic therapy in cardio-cerebrovascular diseases: a review
First author, year | Risk score/ Risk prediction model | Data set | Observation period endpoint | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Source size (n) | ||||
Brewster LM, 2020 [50] | CKmax | TIMI 3B trial 1473 | During hospitalization 1) Major bleeding 2) Composition of major bleeding, stroke and in-hospital death | 1) AUC = 0.68 2) AUC = 0.69 |
Age | 1) AUC = 0.68 2) AUC = 0.67 | |||
MV model (CK, age) | 1) AUC = 0.80 2) AUC = 0.75 | |||
Chotechuang Y, 2020 [51] | GRACE | Primary data Low GRACE score (< 126 points) group: 229 Intermediate-high GRACE score (≥ 126 points) group: 112 | 6 months 1) Composite cardiovascular outcome 2) In-hospital mortality 3) Re-hospitalized with HF | 1) AUC = 0.746; p = 0.003; HR = 5.02; OR = 5.69 2) p = 0.252 3) p < 0.001 |
Chotechuang Y, 2016 [52] | GRACE | Primary data Low GRACE score (< 126 points) group: 88 Intermediate-high GRACE score (≥ 126 points) group: 64 | 6 months 1) Composite cardiovascular outcome 2) In-hospital mortality 3) Re-hospitalized with HF 4) Cardiovascular death | 1) AUC = 0.641; p = 0.024; HR = 2.97; OR = 3.20 2) p = 0.276 3) p = 0.036; OR = 5.34 4) AUC = 0.794 |
Hassan AKM, 2014 [53] | 6MWTD | Primary data 100 | 3 months 1) MACE 2) HF 3) Re-infarction 4) Post-MI angina 5) Death | 1) OR = 7.14; p < 0.001; 2) p = 0.001 3) p = 0.09 4) p: NS 5) p < 0.001 |
GRACE | 1) OR = 7.23; p = 0.004 | |||
GRACE + 6MWT | 1) OR = 8.14; p < 0.001 | |||
TIMI | 1) OR = 3.08; p = 0.07 | |||
Steyerberg EW, 2005 [54] | Belgium model | GUSTO-I 40,830 | 30 days All- cause mortality | AUC = 0.780 |
TIMI-II | AUC = 0.782 | |||
GISSI-II | AUC = 0.757 | |||
GUSTO-I | AUC = 0.821 | |||
GUSTO-I nomogram | AUC = 0.827 | |||
Nisar T, 2019 [55] | HAT | Primary data 89 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS, ECASS-II | AUC = 0.710, 0.769; p = 0.066, 0.044 |
DRAGON | AUC = 0.786, 0.701; p = 0.012, 0.132 | |||
SITS-ICH | AUC = 0.746, 0.655; p = 0.032, 0.247 | |||
MSS | AUC = 0.730, 0.705; p = 0.044, 0.125 | |||
SPAN-100 | AUC = 0.547, 0.576; p = 0.681, 0.569 | |||
SEDAN | AUC = 0.666, 0.617; p = 0.146, 0.383 | |||
THRIVE | AUC = 0.543, 0.539; p = 0.688, 0.574 | |||
Asuzu D, 2015 [56] | DRAGON | Primary data 210 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS | AUC = 0.76 |
s-TPI | AUC = 0.740 | |||
ASTRAL | AUC = 0.72 | |||
HAT | AUC = 0.70 | |||
PRS | AUC = 0.66 | |||
SEDAN | AUC = 0.66 | |||
SITS-ICH | AUC = 0.65 | |||
SPAN-100 | AUC = 0.57 | |||
Watson-Fargie T, 2015 [57] | SEDAN | Primary data 431 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS, ECASS-II, SITS-MOST | AUC = 0.72, 0.67, 0.62 |
HAT | AUC = 0.78, 0.73, 0.67 | |||
GRASPS | AUC = 0.74, 0.69, 0.65 | |||
SITS-ICH | AUC = 0.72, 0.72, 0.68 | |||
Van Hooff RJ, 2014 [58] | s-TPI | MISS and UZB 169 | During hospitalization 1) Functional outcome: Excellent (mRS 0–1), Good (mRS 0–2), Catastrophic (mRS 5–6) 2)SICH: NINDS, ECASS II | 1) AUC = 0.80, 0.83, 0.86 |
iSCORE | 1) AUC = 0.72, 0.80, 0.86 | |||
DRAGON | 1) AUC = 0.79, 0.82, 0.81 | |||
MSS | 2) AUC = 0.70, 0.86 | |||
HAT | 2) AUC = 0.67, 0.79 | |||
SITS-SICH | 2) AUC = 0.68, 0.76 | |||
SEDAN | 2) AUC = 0.70, 0.69 | |||
GRASPS | 2) AUC = 0.66, 0.83 | |||
Sung SF, 2013 [59] | MSS | Primary data 548 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS, ECASS II, SITS-MOST | AUC = 0.60, 0.62, 0.64 |
HAT | AUC = 0.70, 0.69, 0.73 | |||
SITS-ICH | AUC = 0.62, 0.61, 0.68 | |||
GRASPS | AUC = 0.62, 0.61, 0.63 | |||
SPAN-100 | AUC = 0.56, 0.55, 0.57 | |||
Sung SF, 2013 [60] | SITS-ICH | Primary data ACS: 434 PCS: 84 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS, ECASS II, SITS-MOST, any ICH | ACS group: AUC = 0.64, 0.65, 0.70, 0.59 |
PCS group: AUC = -, -, -, 0.79 | ||||
Mazya M, 2013 [61] | SEDAN | SITS-ISTR SICH group: 2222 NO SICH group: 41,760 | - SICH: NINDS, ECASS II, SITS-MOST, any ICH | SICH group: AUC = 0.64, 0.65, 0.70, 0.59 |
NO SICH group: AUC = 0.79 | ||||
Strbian D, 2014 [62] | MSS | Primary data 3012 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS, ECASS II, SITS-MOST, any ICH | AUC = 0.62, 0.63, 0.66, 0.63 |
HAT | AUC = 0.65, 0.65, 0.64, 0.65 | |||
SEDAN | AUC = 0.69, 0.70, 0.69, 0.70 | |||
GRASPS | AUC = 0.67, 0.67, 0.67, 0.67 | |||
SITS-ICH | AUC = 0.61, 0.64, 0.67, 0.64 | |||
SPAN-100 | AUC = 0.55, 0.56, 0.56, 0.56 | |||
Li M, 2015 [63] | SEDAN | TIMS-China 811 | During hospitalization SICH: NINDS, ECASS II, SITS-MOST | AUC = 0.59, 0.59, 0.62 |
SITS-ICH | AUC = 0.65, 0.69, 0.72 | |||
GRASPS | AUC = 0.70, 0.73, 0.70 | |||
MSS | AUC = 0.71, 0.72, 0.73 | |||
Chang X, 2021 [64] | ASPECTS | Primary data 248 | During hospitalization Hemorrhagic transformation | AUC = 0.895; Se = 100%; Sp = 60.7% |
DRAGON | AUC = 0.877; Se = 84.4%; Sp = 82.1% | |||
SEDAN | AUC = 0.764; Se = 78.6%; Sp = 68.6% | |||
HAT | AUC = 0.777; Se = 68.8%; Sp = 82.1% | |||
Orbán-Kálmándi R, 2021 [65] | CLA AUC | Primary data 231 | 90 days 1) SICH: ECASS II 2) Unfavorable functional outcomes (mRS > 2)/ no change | 1) Se = 61.1%; Sp = 56.8% 2) Se = 49.5%; Sp = 66.7% |
Modified CLA (CLA in the presence of cfDNA and histones) | 1) Se = 66.7%; Sp = 62.0% 2) Se = 64.2%; Sp = 55.2% | |||
Turcato G, 2016 [66] | RDW | Primary data 316 | 1 year 1) Lack of neurological improvement 2) All-cause mortality | 1) AUC = 0.667, p < 0.01 2) Median survival: 280 (RDW ≥ 14.5%) and 341(RDW < 14.5%) days |