Skip to main content

Table 3 Prognostic performance of the high-risk SCORE before and after inclusion of binge and problem drinking

From: Inclusion of hazardous drinking does not improve the SCORE performance in men from Central and Eastern Europe: the findings from the HAPIEE cohorts

 

Czech Republic

Poland

Russia

Model 1 (SCORE only)

SCORE HR (95% CI)

8.64 (3.13-23.82)

3.50 (1.71-7.14)

7.00 (3.69-13.28)

Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 (p)a

9.21 (0.33)

5.98 (0.54)

46.71 (<0.01)

Harrell’s C

0.6586

0.6262

0.6276

Model 2 (SCORE and binge drinking)

SCORE HR (95% CI)

8.56 (3.11-23.62)

3.50 (1.71-7.15)

6.99 (3.69-13.27)

Binge drinking HR (95% CI)

0.74 (0.35-1.55)

1.36 (0.62-3.01)

1.15 (0.83-1.59)

Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 (p)a

11.07 (0.20)

7.57 (0.48)

38.61 (<0.01)

Harrell’s C

0.6694

0.6321

0.6404

LRT p

0.40

0.46

0.40

IDI, % (p)

0.039 (0.32)

0.013 (0.68)

0.043 (0.27)

Model 3 (SCORE and problem drinking)

SCORE HR (95% CI)

8.62 (3.12-23.76)

3.57 (1.75-7.30)

7.00 (3.69-13.28)

Problem drinking HR (95% CI)

0.64 (0.23-1.77)

2.34 (1.18-4.65)

1.21 (0.84-1.74)

Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 (p)a

8.82 (0.36)

14.85 (0.06)

38.27 (<0.01)

Harrell’s C

0.6674

0.6525

0.6364

LRT p

0.36

0.03

0.32

IDI, % (p)

0.053 (0.15)

0.220 (0.09)

0.041 (0.33)

Model 4 (SCORE, binge drinking, and problem drinking)

SCORE HR (95% CI)

8.56 (3.10-23.61)

3.60 (1.75-7.30)

7.00 (3.69-13.27)

Binge drinking HR (95% CI)

0.79 (0.37-1.71)

0.98 (0.41-2.32)

1.10 (0.77-1.56)

Problem drinking (95% CI)

0.69 (0.24-1.97)

2.36 (1.12-4.97)

1.16 (0.79-1.72)

Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 (p)a

11.68 (0.17)

15.20 (0.06)

38.86 (<0.01)

Harrell’s C

0.6705

0.6611

0.6443

LRT p

0.54

0.09

0.53

IDI, % (p)

0.071 (0.13)

0.219 (0.09)

0.060 (0.21)

  1. CI, confidence interval; IDI, integrated discrimination improvement; HR, hazard ratio; LRT, likelihood ratio test. aCalculated for continuous high-risk SCORE.
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us