Traumatic transfers: calibration is adversely affected when prediction models are transferred between trauma care contexts in India and the United States.
J Clin Epidemiol 2016;
74:177-86. [PMID:
26775627 DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.004]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2015] [Revised: 11/13/2015] [Accepted: 01/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
We evaluated the transferability of prediction models between trauma care contexts in India and the United States and explored updating methods to adjust such models for new contexts.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS
Using a combination of prospective cohort and registry data from 3,728 patients of Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcomes in India (TITCO) and from 18,756 patients of the US National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), we derived models in one context and validated them in the other, assessing them for discrimination and calibration using systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and Glasgow coma scale as candidate predictors.
RESULTS
Early mortality was 8% in the TITCO and 1-2% in the NTDB samples. Both models discriminated well, but the TITCO model overestimated the risk of mortality in NTDB patients, and the NTDB model underestimated the risk in TITCO patients.
CONCLUSION
Transferability was good in terms of discrimination but poor in terms of calibration. It was possible to improve this miscalibration by updating the models' intercept. This updating method could be used in samples with as few as 25 events.
Collapse