Skip to main content

Table 4 Available AUC estimates (and 95% confidence intervals) for the prediction models

From: Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review

Prediction model

Validation

(using derivation or external dataset)

Dataset used, country

AUC (95% CI)

Source

Colorectal cancer

 Bristol-Birmingham equation [29]

Derivation

THIN, UK

0.83 (0.82, 0.84)

[29]

 

External

CAPER, UK

0.92 (0.91, 0.94)

[29]

 

External

CEDAR, Netherlands

0.84 (0.77, 0.90)

[27]

 Netherlands model [28]

Derivation

Primary care, Netherlands

0.97

[28]

 

External

Secondary care, UK

0.78 (0.74, 0.81)

[40]

 

External

CEDAR, Netherlands

0.72 (0.62, 0.81)

[27]

 Netherlands model including polyps [28]

Derivation

Primary care, Netherlands

0.92

[28]

 Qcancer (male) [22]

Derivation

Qresearch, UK

0.91 (0. 09, 0.91)

[22]

 

External

THIN (multiple imputation), UK

0.92 (0.91, 0.92)

[23]

  

THIN (complete case analysis), UK

0.90 (0.89, 0.91)

[23]

 Qcancer (female) [22]

Derivation

Qresearch, UK

0.89 (0.88, 0.90)

[22]

 

External

THIN (complete case analysis), UK

0.91 (0.90, 0.92)

[23]

 Danish model [31]

External

CEDAR, Netherlands

0.6 (0.48, 0.72)

[27]

 RAT (2005) [33]

External

CEDAR, Netherlands

0.81 (0.75, 0.88)

[27]

Multiple cancer sites

 Muris abdominal complaints model [30]

External

CEDAR, Netherlands

0.62 (0.54, 0.70)

[27]