Article Text

The performance of seven QPrediction risk scores in an independent external sample of patients from general practice: a validation study
  1. Julia Hippisley-Cox1,
  2. Carol Coupland1,
  3. Peter Brindle2
  1. 1Division of Primary Care, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, Bristol Clinical Commissioning Group, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Julia Hippisley-Cox; Julia.hippisley-cox{at}


Objectives To validate the performance of a set of risk prediction algorithms developed using the QResearch database, in an independent sample from general practices contributing to the Clinical Research Data Link (CPRD).

Setting Prospective open cohort study using practices contributing to the CPRD database and practices contributing to the QResearch database.

Participants The CPRD validation cohort consisted of 3.3 million patients, aged 25–99 years registered at 357 general practices between 1 Jan 1998 and 31 July 2012. The validation statistics for QResearch were obtained from the original published papers which used a one-third sample of practices separate to those used to derive the score. A cohort from QResearch was used to compare incidence rates and baseline characteristics and consisted of 6.8 million patients from 753 practices registered between 1 Jan 1998 and until 31 July 2013.

Outcome measures Incident events relating to seven different risk prediction scores: QRISK2 (cardiovascular disease); QStroke (ischaemic stroke); QDiabetes (type 2 diabetes); QFracture (osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture); QKidney (moderate and severe kidney failure); QThrombosis (venous thromboembolism); QBleed (intracranial bleed and upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage). Measures of discrimination and calibration were calculated.

Results Overall, the baseline characteristics of the CPRD and QResearch cohorts were similar though QResearch had higher recording levels for ethnicity and family history. The validation statistics for each of the risk prediction scores were very similar in the CPRD cohort compared with the published results from QResearch validation cohorts. For example, in women, the QDiabetes algorithm explained 50% of the variation within CPRD compared with 51% on QResearch and the receiver operator curve value was 0.85 on both databases. The scores were well calibrated in CPRD.

Conclusions Each of the algorithms performed practically as well in the external independent CPRD validation cohorts as they had in the original published QResearch validation cohorts.

  • Qresearch
  • Cprd
  • Qrisk2
  • Prognosis
  • Validation

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.