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]