Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyMeta-analysis
Multiparametric models for predicting major arrhythmic events in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and critical appraisal
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model studies
- random-effects
- CHARMS and PROBAST appraisal
- Medline, Embase and Central searched through September/2024
Authors' conclusion
Currently available multiparametric models for prediction of MAE in BrS have important shortcomings in model development and inadequate evaluation.
Study context
- Population
- Studies developing or validating multivariable prediction models for major arrhythmic events in Brugada syndrome16 studies · 11 scores
- Comparison
- Multivariable risk models for major arrhythmic events (MAE) in Brugada syndrome
- Outcome
- Discriminative performance (pooled c-statistic) of models predicting MAE
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Pooled c-statistic (AUC) for MAE in patients without previous MAE
Pooled c-statistic (AUC) for MAE in patients without previous MAE Brugada-Risk AUC 0.81 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) · PAT AUC 0.79 (95% CI 0.45–1.12) · Delise AUC 0.77 (95% CI 0.72–0.81) · Sieira AUC 0.73 (95% CI 0.64–0.82)
I2
Studies Brugada-Risk three · PAT two · Delise three · Sieira five
Performance Brugada-Risk good · PAT fair · Delise fair · Sieira fair
Further pooled results
Risk of bias (PROBAST)
- All models had domains classified as high risk of bias (RoB)
- Common sources: inappropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria, predictor selection, low number of events, underreporting of performance measures
Original publication
Multiparametric models for predicting major arrhythmic events in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Europace. Published 2 May 2025. doi:10.1093/europace/euaf091
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it