Data Sheet 1_Traditional Chinese and Western medicine-integrated risk prediction models for coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.docx

Twelve of 16 studies had high or unclear overall risk of bias, and only 5 studies reported external validation. Although subgroup analyses suggested possible differences according to the number of TCM predictors, these analyses were exploratory and did not resolve the extreme between-study heterogeneity.</p>Conclusions<p>TCM-WM integrated models yielded favorable average discrimination estimates, but extreme heterogeneity, methodological limitations, and limited external validation substantially reduce certainty in the pooled estimates.

The findings should therefore be considered hypothesis-generating and do not establish reliable performance or clinical benefit across settings. Multicenter prospective validation, standardized TCM definitions, and transparent reporting according to TRIPOD and PROBAST are required before clinical implementation.</p>Systematic Review Registration<p>crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250652605, CRD420250652605.</p>