Neonatal death prediction scores: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS BMJ Paediatrics Open Pub Date : 2024-12-24 DOI:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-003067
Felipe C S Veloso, Carine R A Barros, Samir B Kassar, Ricardo Q Gurgel
{"title":"Neonatal death prediction scores: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Felipe C S Veloso, Carine R A Barros, Samir B Kassar, Ricardo Q Gurgel","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2024-003067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare, through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational accuracy studies, the main existing neonatal death prediction scores.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational accuracy studies. The databases accessed were MEDLINE, ELSEVIER, LILACS, SciELO, OpenGrey, Open Access Thesis and Dissertations, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. For qualitative analysis, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used. For the quantitative analysis, the area under the curve and the SE were used, as well as the inverse of the variance as a weight measure, DerSimonian and Laird as a measure of random effects, Higgins' I² as an estimate of heterogeneity, Z as a final measure with a 95% confidence level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>55 studies were analysed, 8 scores were compared in a total of 193 849 newborns included. The most accurate neonatal death prediction score was Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology Perinatal Extension II (SNAPPE II) (0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92)) and the least accurate was gestational age (0.75 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.79)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SNAPPE II was the most accurate score found in this study. Despite this, the choice of score depends on the situation and setting in which the newborn is inserted, and it is up to the researcher to analyse and decide which one to use based on practicality and the possibility of local implementation. Given this, it is interesting to carry out new prospective studies to improve the prediction of neonatal deaths around the world.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023462425.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11683888/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-003067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare, through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational accuracy studies, the main existing neonatal death prediction scores.

Method: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational accuracy studies. The databases accessed were MEDLINE, ELSEVIER, LILACS, SciELO, OpenGrey, Open Access Thesis and Dissertations, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. For qualitative analysis, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used. For the quantitative analysis, the area under the curve and the SE were used, as well as the inverse of the variance as a weight measure, DerSimonian and Laird as a measure of random effects, Higgins' I² as an estimate of heterogeneity, Z as a final measure with a 95% confidence level.

Results: 55 studies were analysed, 8 scores were compared in a total of 193 849 newborns included. The most accurate neonatal death prediction score was Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology Perinatal Extension II (SNAPPE II) (0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92)) and the least accurate was gestational age (0.75 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.79)).

Conclusion: SNAPPE II was the most accurate score found in this study. Despite this, the choice of score depends on the situation and setting in which the newborn is inserted, and it is up to the researcher to analyse and decide which one to use based on practicality and the possibility of local implementation. Given this, it is interesting to carry out new prospective studies to improve the prediction of neonatal deaths around the world.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023462425.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新生儿死亡预测评分:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:通过对观察准确性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较现有的主要新生儿死亡预测评分。方法:对观察准确性研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。检索数据库包括MEDLINE、ELSEVIER、LILACS、SciELO、OpenGrey、Open Access Thesis and Dissertations、EMBASE、Web of Science、SCOPUS和Cochrane Library。定性分析采用《诊断准确性质量评估研究2》。对于定量分析,使用曲线下面积和SE,以及方差的倒数作为权重度量,DerSimonian和Laird作为随机效应的度量,Higgins' I²作为异质性的估计,Z作为95%置信水平的最终度量。结果:分析55项研究,比较8项评分,共纳入193 849例新生儿。最准确的新生儿死亡预测评分是新生儿急性生理围产期延长评分II (SNAPPE II) (0.89 (95% CI 0.86 ~ 0.92)),最不准确的是胎龄(0.75 (95% CI 0.71 ~ 0.79))。结论:SNAPPE II是本研究中最准确的评分。尽管如此,分数的选择取决于新生儿被植入的情况和环境,由研究人员根据实用性和局部实施的可能性来分析和决定使用哪一种。鉴于此,开展新的前瞻性研究以改善世界各地新生儿死亡的预测是很有趣的。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023462425。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
期刊最新文献
Surgical management of neuromuscular scoliosis in paediatric patients: experiences from a tertiary centre multidisciplinary team. Development of a core outcome set for paediatric achalasia: a joint ERNICA, ESPGHAN and EUPSA study protocol. Health Hackathon: empowering students as tomorrow's leaders in health. Sepsis beyond bundles: contextualising paediatric care in resource-limited settings through situational analysis. Targeted oxygenation in the respiratory care of premature infants at delivery-effects on outcome: a randomised controlled trial (Torpido 3060) study protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1