Risk prediction models, using either machine learning or statistical algorithms, can act as inputs of a cost-effectiveness model when predicting costs and effectiveness of an intervention. This systematic review has two objectives: to evaluate methodological quality of the published models to predict diabetic coronary heart disease (CHD) risk; to evaluate whether the models were sufficiently reported to judge their applicability to the cost-effectiveness modelling.

A targeted review of journal articles published in English, Dutch, Chinese, or Spanish was undertaken in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Explore from 1 January, 2016 to 31 May, 2021. To assess the methodological quality and reporting of the models, we used PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool), CHARMS (a Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies), and a checklist (Betts 2019) summarizing the application of cardiovascular risk prediction models to health technology assessment.

Our search retrieved 6,579 hits, of which 18 models were eligible for inclusion. Among them, four studies developed machine learning models (2 recurrent neural networks, 1 random forest models, and 1 multi-task learning model) while 14 studies developed statistical models (8 Cox models, 5 logistic models, and 1 microsimulation model). More than 70 percent of models were of high methodological quality in aspects of participants (89%), predictors (72%), and outcomes (72%), while only five models (28%) in aspects of statistical analysis. For the reporting, only two models provided sufficient evidence in all aspects (i.e., participants, predictors, and outcomes) for judging their applicability to the cost-effectiveness modelling. Most models were reported sufficiently regarding participants (78%) and outcomes (72%), but only three models regarding predictors (17%).

To apply the CHD risk prediction models to cost-effectiveness modelling, concerns remain regarding the potential risk of bias due to inappropriate use of analysis methods, and regarding insufficient reporting on how to measure and assess the predictors.