| Title |
Predicting the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of a vascular surgery: an empirical comparison of the minimum p value method and ROC curve approach using individual patient data meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1936-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thuva Vanniyasingam, Reitze N. Rodseth, Giovanna A. Lurati Buse, Daniel Bolliger, Christoph S. Burkhart, Brian H. Cuthbertson, Simon C. Gibson, Elisabeth Mahla, David W. Leibowitz, Bruce M. Biccard, Lehana Thabane |
| Abstract |
We aimed to compare the minimum p value method and the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve approach to categorize continuous biomarkers for the prediction of postoperative 30-day major adverse cardiac events in noncardiac vascular surgery patients. Individual-patient data from six cohorts reporting B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) were obtained. These biomarkers were dichotomized using the minimum p value method and compared with previously reported ROC curve-derived thresholds using logistic regression analysis. A final prediction model was developed, internally validated, and assessed for its sensitivity to clustering effects. Finally, a preoperative risk score system was proposed. Thresholds identified by the minimum p value method and ROC curve approach were 115.57 pg/ml (p < 0.001) and 116 pg/ml for BNP, and 241.7 pg/ml (p = 0.001) and 277.5 pg/ml for NTproBNP, respectively. The minimum p value thresholds were slightly stronger predictors based on our logistic regression analysis. The final model included a composite predictor of the minimum p value method's BNP and NTproBNP thresholds [odds ratio (OR) = 8.5, p < 0.001], surgery type (OR = 2.5, p = 0.002), and diabetes (OR = 2.1, p = 0.015). Preoperative risks using the scoring system ranged from 2 to 49 %. The minimum p value method and ROC curve approach identify similar optimal thresholds. We propose to replace the revised cardiac risk index with our risk score system for individual-specific preoperative risk stratification after noncardiac nonvascular surgery. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 50% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,313,158
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,459
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,440
of 300,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#134
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.