Performance of Clinical Risk Prediction Models for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Pancreas Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1097/MPA.0000000000002476
Nasruddin Sabrie, Gurjot Minhas, Marcus Vaska, Zhao Wu Meng, Darren R Brenner, Nauzer Forbes
{"title":"Performance of Clinical Risk Prediction Models for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Nasruddin Sabrie, Gurjot Minhas, Marcus Vaska, Zhao Wu Meng, Darren R Brenner, Nauzer Forbes","doi":"10.1097/MPA.0000000000002476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Pancreatitis is common following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Despite increased vigilance of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), both its incidence and associated mortality are rising. Risk prediction models may provide more accurate stratification of patient risk and proactive mitigation of PEP incidence and/or severe associated outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, PubMEd, Cochrane, and CINAHL from inception through April 9, 2024 for studies evaluating the details and performances of available PEP prediction models. Studies were eligible if they used statistical measures to quantify their model's predictive ability. Risk of bias was determined using the PROBAST tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies met eligibility criteria and were included. Logistic regression models were used in 15 studies, with machine learning models representing the second most commonly employed approach. Ten studies reported the performance of their risk prediction models using derivation data, with areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) ranging from 0.68 to 0.86. Fifteen studies reported the performance of their risk prediction models on internally validated data, with AUCs ranging from 0.66 to 0.97. Eight studies reported on the performance of their risk prediction models on external validation data, with AUCs ranging from 0.67 to 0.98.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Numerous PEP clinical prediction models exist with variable performances. The use of PEP prediction tools can support the management of patients following ERCP. Implementation studies assessing the optimal usability of these tools, followed by prospective evaluations, are needed to evaluate their potential impacts on reducing PEP in real-world practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19733,"journal":{"name":"Pancreas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancreas","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000002476","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Pancreatitis is common following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Despite increased vigilance of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), both its incidence and associated mortality are rising. Risk prediction models may provide more accurate stratification of patient risk and proactive mitigation of PEP incidence and/or severe associated outcomes.

Methods: We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, PubMEd, Cochrane, and CINAHL from inception through April 9, 2024 for studies evaluating the details and performances of available PEP prediction models. Studies were eligible if they used statistical measures to quantify their model's predictive ability. Risk of bias was determined using the PROBAST tool.

Results: Nineteen studies met eligibility criteria and were included. Logistic regression models were used in 15 studies, with machine learning models representing the second most commonly employed approach. Ten studies reported the performance of their risk prediction models using derivation data, with areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) ranging from 0.68 to 0.86. Fifteen studies reported the performance of their risk prediction models on internally validated data, with AUCs ranging from 0.66 to 0.97. Eight studies reported on the performance of their risk prediction models on external validation data, with AUCs ranging from 0.67 to 0.98.

Discussion: Numerous PEP clinical prediction models exist with variable performances. The use of PEP prediction tools can support the management of patients following ERCP. Implementation studies assessing the optimal usability of these tools, followed by prospective evaluations, are needed to evaluate their potential impacts on reducing PEP in real-world practice.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pancreas
Pancreas 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
289
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Pancreas provides a central forum for communication of original works involving both basic and clinical research on the exocrine and endocrine pancreas and their interrelationships and consequences in disease states. This multidisciplinary, international journal covers the whole spectrum of basic sciences, etiology, prevention, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and surgical and medical management of pancreatic diseases, including cancer.
期刊最新文献
Pancreatic Malformation and Heterotaxy Syndrome Associated With 6q25.1 Haploinsufficiency. The Predictive Value of Red Cell Distribution Width for the Risk of Sepsis in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Serum Exosomal miR-216a Contributes to Acute Pancreatitis-Associated Acute Lung Injury by Enhancing Endothelial cell Vascular Permeability via Downregulating LAMC1. Usefulness of MRI T1 Mapping in Predicting Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy. Analysis of the Application of Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage and Drainage in the Early Treatment of Severe Acute Pancreatitis.
×
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