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.