ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2022
Development and validation of a model to categorize cardiovascular cause of death using health administrative data.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study objective: Develop and evaluate a model that uses health administrative data to categorize cardiovascular (CV) cause of death (COD). Design: Population-based cohort. Setting: Ontario, Canada. Participants: Decedents ≥ 40 years with known COD between 2008 and 2015 in the CANHEART cohort, split into derivation (2008 to 2012; n = 363,778) and validation (2013 to 2015; n = 239,672) cohorts. Main outcome measures: Model performance. COD was categorized as CV or non-CV with ICD-10 codes as the gold standard. We developed a logistic regression model that uses routinely collected healthcare administrative to categorize CV versus non-CV COD. We assessed model discrimination and calibration in the validation cohort. Results: The strongest predictors for CV COD were history of stroke, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and CV hospitalization one month before death. In the validation cohort, the c-statistic was 0.80, the sensitivity 0.75 (95 % CI 0.74 to 0.75) and the specificity 0.71 (95 % CI 0.70 to 0.71). In the primary prevention validation sub-cohort, the c-statistic was 0.81, the sensitivity 0.71 (95 % CI 0.70 to 0.71) and the specificity 0.75 (95 % CI 0.75 to 0.75) while in the secondary prevention sub-cohort the c-statistic was 0.74, the sensitivity 0.81 (95 % CI 0.81 to 0.82) and the specificity 0.54 (95 % CI 0.53 to 0.54). Conclusion: Modelling approaches using health administrative data show potential in categorizing CV COD, though further work is necessary before this approach is employed in clinical studies.
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.