Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Mortality in General Medical Patients: A Systematic Review.

American journal of medicine open Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-05 DOI:10.1016/j.ajmo.2023.100044
Yousif M Hydoub, Andrew P Walker, Robert W Kirchoff, Hossam M Alzu'bi, Patricia Y Chipi, Danielle J Gerberi, M Caroline Burton, M Hassan Murad, Sagar B Dugani
{"title":"Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Mortality in General Medical Patients: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Yousif M Hydoub, Andrew P Walker, Robert W Kirchoff, Hossam M Alzu'bi, Patricia Y Chipi, Danielle J Gerberi, M Caroline Burton, M Hassan Murad, Sagar B Dugani","doi":"10.1016/j.ajmo.2023.100044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review contemporary prediction models for hospital mortality developed or validated in general medical patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened articles in five databases, from January 1, 2010, through April 7, 2022, and the bibliography of articles selected for final inclusion. We assessed the quality for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and extracted data using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. Two investigators independently screened each article, assessed quality, and extracted data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 20,424 unique articles, we identified 15 models in 8 studies across 10 countries. The studies included 280,793 general medical patients and 19,923 hospital deaths. Models included 7 early warning scores, 2 comorbidities indices, and 6 combination models. Ten models were studied in all general medical patients (general models) and 7 in general medical patients with infection (infection models). Of the 15 models, 13 were developed using logistic or Poisson regression and 2 using machine learning methods. Also, 4 of 15 models reported on handling of missing values. None of the infection models had high discrimination, whereas 4 of 10 general models had high discrimination (area under curve >0.8). Only 1 model appropriately assessed calibration. All models had high risk of bias; 4 of 10 general models and 5 of 7 infection models had low concern for applicability for general medical patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mortality prediction models for general medical patients were sparse and differed in quality, applicability, and discrimination. These models require hospital-level validation and/or recalibration in general medical patients to guide mortality reduction interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":72168,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medicine open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10715621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medicine open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajmo.2023.100044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review contemporary prediction models for hospital mortality developed or validated in general medical patients.

Methods: We screened articles in five databases, from January 1, 2010, through April 7, 2022, and the bibliography of articles selected for final inclusion. We assessed the quality for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and extracted data using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. Two investigators independently screened each article, assessed quality, and extracted data.

Results: From 20,424 unique articles, we identified 15 models in 8 studies across 10 countries. The studies included 280,793 general medical patients and 19,923 hospital deaths. Models included 7 early warning scores, 2 comorbidities indices, and 6 combination models. Ten models were studied in all general medical patients (general models) and 7 in general medical patients with infection (infection models). Of the 15 models, 13 were developed using logistic or Poisson regression and 2 using machine learning methods. Also, 4 of 15 models reported on handling of missing values. None of the infection models had high discrimination, whereas 4 of 10 general models had high discrimination (area under curve >0.8). Only 1 model appropriately assessed calibration. All models had high risk of bias; 4 of 10 general models and 5 of 7 infection models had low concern for applicability for general medical patients.

Conclusion: Mortality prediction models for general medical patients were sparse and differed in quality, applicability, and discrimination. These models require hospital-level validation and/or recalibration in general medical patients to guide mortality reduction interventions.

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
普通内科病人住院死亡率风险预测模型:系统综述
目的系统回顾针对普通内科病人开发或验证的当代住院死亡率预测模型:我们筛选了五个数据库中从 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 4 月 7 日的文章,并筛选出最终纳入文章的参考文献。我们使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估了偏倚风险和适用性的质量,并使用预测模型研究系统性回顾的关键评估和数据提取清单(CHARMS)提取了数据。两名研究人员独立筛选每篇文章、评估质量并提取数据:从 20424 篇文章中,我们确定了 10 个国家 8 项研究中的 15 个模型。这些研究包括 280,793 名普通内科病人和 19,923 例医院死亡病例。模型包括 7 个预警评分、2 个合并症指数和 6 个组合模型。其中 10 个模型针对所有普通内科病人(普通模型),7 个针对有感染的普通内科病人(感染模型)。在这 15 个模型中,有 13 个是使用逻辑或泊松回归法开发的,2 个是使用机器学习方法开发的。此外,15 个模型中有 4 个报告了缺失值的处理方法。没有一个感染模型具有较高的区分度,而 10 个一般模型中有 4 个具有较高的区分度(曲线下面积大于 0.8)。只有 1 个模型对校准进行了适当的评估。所有模型的偏倚风险都很高;10 个普通模型中的 4 个和 7 个感染模型中的 5 个对普通内科病人的适用性关注度较低:结论:普通内科病人的死亡率预测模型数量稀少,且在质量、适用性和区分度方面存在差异。这些模型需要在普通内科病人中进行医院层面的验证和/或重新校准,以指导降低死亡率的干预措施。
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
American journal of medicine open
American journal of medicine open Medicine and Dentistry (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊最新文献
Functional Assessment of >18 Years Old Patients at Internal Medicine Ward—Relationship with In-Hospital and 30-Day Mortality Current Communication Practices Between Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants and Program Directors: A National Survey Post-Acute Sequelae of Covid-19: A System-wise Approach on the Effects of Long-Covid-19 In-Hospital Mortality by Race and Ethnicity Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Using Data From the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome Among Emerging Adult Cannabis Users by Race/Ethnicity: Analysis of the 2009-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys
×
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