Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 3;12:718438. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.718438

Table 1.

Overview and assessment of prediction models of recurrent acute ischemic stroke in patients with carotid stenosis.

ECST medical model (6, 22) SCAIL (23)
Model characteristics • 11 predictors
• Target group: patients with TIA/ischemic stroke and 50–99% stenosis
• Prediction horizon: 5 years
• Outcome: ipsilateral ischemic stroke
• Method: Cox proportional hazards
• 2 predictors (or 9 predictors by correction for clinical parameters)
• Target group: patients with TIA/ minor ischemic stroke and 50–99% stenosis
• Prediction horizon: 90 days
• Outcome: ipsilateral ischemic stroke
• Method: Cox proportional hazards
Development • Derivation population: symptomatic patients (ischemic stroke/TIA) with 50–99% stenosis
+ EPV ~ 12
- Handling of missing values not reported
- Derivation data no longer reflecting ischemic stroke risk with current best medical treatment
± Simplified risk scores
• Derivation population: symptomatic patients (minor ischemic stroke/TIA) with ≥50% stenosis
- EPV < 2 (n of candidate predictors unclear)
- No censoring of patients with CEA
± Simplified risk scores
Validation • Validation population: Symptomatic patients (TIA or ischemic stroke) with 50–99% stenosis
- No internal validation
- Validation by same authors in same paper
• Validation population: Symptomatic patients (minor ischemic stroke/TIA) with ≥50% stenosis
- Low number of events
- 9-factor model was used
- Validation by same authors in same paper
Performance + Good calibration
- No C-statistic given
- No sensitivity or specificity reported
+ High C-statistic
- Unclear what the performance of the 2-predictor model is
Feasibility + Web-based calculator available
- No disclaimer and no access to explanatory texts on website
+ Only 2 predictors (without correction for clinical parameters)
- Low face validity
- PET/CT is expensive and patients are exposed to ionizing radiation
Overall risk of bias High risk of bias
- Data collection prior to current best medical treatment
- No clear performance indicators
High risk of bias
- Very low EPV
- Validation performed with low number of events
- Long-term prognostic power for patients with carotid stenosis not yet clear