Design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules are suboptimal: a systematic review

Objectives To evaluate design, methods, and reporting of impact studies cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs). Study Design Setting We conducted a systematic review. Impact CPRs were identified by forward citation electronic database searches. categorized the design as appropriate for randomized nonrandomized experiments, excluding uncontrolled before-after study. For with study we assessed quality methods reporting. compared between matched control studies. Results found 110 CPRs. Of these, 65 (59.1%) used inappropriate designs. 45 31 (68.9%) had substantial risk bias. Mean number domains that adhered to was 10.2 21 (95% confidence interval, 9.3 11.1). The not clearly different Conclusion most either bias, or poorly complied guidelines. This appears be common feature complex interventions. Users should critically evidence showing effectiveness