02359nas a2200217   4500000000100000008004100001100002200042700001800064700001400082700001400096700001300110700001700123700001800140700001500158245011500173250001500288300001000303490000700313520177500320020004602095       2012                            d1 avan der Schouw Y.1 avan Dieren S.1 aPeelen L.1 aRutten G.1 aMoons K.1 aKengne Andre1 aWoodward Mark1 aBeulens J.00aPrediction models for the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review  a2011/12/21  a360-90 v983 a<p>
CONTEXT: A recent overview of all CVD models applicable to diabetes patients is not available. OBJECTIVE: To review the primary prevention studies that focused on the development, validation and impact assessment of a cardiovascular risk model, scores or rules that can be applied to patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline was searched from 1966 to 1 April 2011. STUDY SELECTION: A study was eligible when it described the development, validation or impact assessment of a model that was constructed to predict the occurrence of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes, or when the model was designed for use in the general population but included diabetes as a predictor. DATA EXTRACTION: A standardized form was sued to extract all data of the CVD models. RESULTS: 45 prediction models were identified, of which 12 were specifically developed for patients with type 2 diabetes. Only 31% of the risk scores has been externally validated in a diabetes population, with an area under the curve ranging from 0.61 to 0.86 and 0.59 to 0.80 for models developed in a diabetes population and in the general population, respectively. Only one risk score has been studied for its effect on patient management and outcomes. 10% of the risk scores are advocated in national diabetes guidelines. CONCLUSION: Many cardiovascular risk scores are available that can be applied to patients with type 2 diabetes. A minority of these risk scores has been validated and tested for its predictive accuracy, with only a few showing a discriminative value of &gt;/=0.80. The impact of applying these risk scores in clinical practice is almost completely unknown, but their use is recommended in various national guidelines.
</p>
  a1468-201X (Electronic)1355-6037 (Linking)