ArticleBMC public health2016
Assessing the external validity of model-based estimates of the incidence of heart attack in England: a modelling study.
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality attributable to diabetes in Cuba: Estimates for 2019.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Automatic electronic reporting improved the completeness of AMI and stroke incident surveillance in Tianjin, China: a modeling study.Population health metrics · 2023Article
- Bayesian multistate modelling of incomplete chronic disease burden data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe DisMod II model is designed to estimate epidemiological parameters on diseases where measured data are incomplete and has been used to provide estimates of disease incidence for the Global Burden of Disease study. We assessed the external validity of the DisMod II model by comparing modelled estimates of the incidence of first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in England in 2010 with estimates derived from a linked dataset of hospital records and death certificates.
methodsInputs for DisMod II were prevalence rates of ever having had an AMI taken from a population health survey, total mortality rates and AMI mortality rates taken from death certificates. By definition, remission rates were zero. We estimated first AMI incidence in an external dataset from England in 2010 using a linked dataset including all hospital admissions and death certificates since 1998. 95 % confidence intervals were derived around estimates from the external dataset and DisMod II estimates based on sampling variance and reported uncertainty in prevalence estimates respectively.
resultsEstimates of the incidence rate for the whole population were higher in the DisMod II results than the external dataset (+54 % for men and +26 % for women). Age-specific results showed that the DisMod II results over-estimated incidence for all but the oldest age groups. Confidence intervals for the DisMod II and external dataset estimates did not overlap for most age groups.
conclusionBy comparison with AMI incidence rates in England, DisMod II did not achieve external validity for age-specific incidence rates, but did provide global estimates of incidence that are of similar magnitude to measured estimates. The model should be used with caution when estimating age-specific incidence rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.