Head-to-head comparisons of cardiovascular risk prediction models are currently limited by biases and a lack of standardized reporting, indicating a need for improved methodological rigor in future studies.
Several risk prediction models for cardiovascular disease are available and their head to head comparisons would benefit from standardised reporting and formal, consistent statistical comparisons. Outcome selection and optimism biases apparently affect this literature.
Siontis et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: