重症监护病房危重病人体质虚弱的风险预测模型:系统综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Australian Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.aucc.2024.05.003
Yue Zhou RN, BSN, YuJian Sun RN, BSN, YuFan Pan RN, BSN, Yu Dai RN, BSN, Yi Xiao RN, BSN, YuFeng Yu BSN
{"title":"重症监护病房危重病人体质虚弱的风险预测模型:系统综述。","authors":"Yue Zhou RN, BSN,&nbsp;YuJian Sun RN, BSN,&nbsp;YuFan Pan RN, BSN,&nbsp;Yu Dai RN, BSN,&nbsp;Yi Xiao RN, BSN,&nbsp;YuFeng Yu BSN","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive care unit<span> (ICU)-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is a critical complication that significantly worsens patient prognosis. It is widely thought that risk prediction models can be harnessed to guide preventive interventions. While the number of ICU-AW risk prediction models is increasing, the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice remain unclear.</span></div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this study was to systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for ICU-AW.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library<span>, Embase<span>, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database) from inception to October 2023 for studies on ICU-AW risk prediction models. Two independent researchers screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies.</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>A total of 2709 articles were identified. After screening, 25 articles were selected, encompassing 25 risk prediction models. The area under the curve for these models ranged from 0.681 to 0.926. Evaluation of bias risk indicated that all included models exhibited a high risk of bias, with three models demonstrating poor applicability. The top five predictors among these models were </span>mechanical ventilation<span> duration, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, blood lactate levels, and the length of ICU stay. The combined area under the curve of the ten validation models was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.77–0.88), indicating a strong discriminative ability.</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Overall, ICU-AW risk prediction models demonstrate promising discriminative ability. However, further optimisation is needed to address limitations, including data source heterogeneity, potential biases in study design, and the need for robust statistical validation. Future efforts should prioritise external validation of existing models or the development of high-quality predictive models with superior performance.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>The protocol for this study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42023453187).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":"38 1","pages":"Article 101066"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk prediction models for intensive care unit–acquired weakness in critically ill patients: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Yue Zhou RN, BSN,&nbsp;YuJian Sun RN, BSN,&nbsp;YuFan Pan RN, BSN,&nbsp;Yu Dai RN, BSN,&nbsp;Yi Xiao RN, BSN,&nbsp;YuFeng Yu BSN\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intensive care unit<span> (ICU)-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is a critical complication that significantly worsens patient prognosis. It is widely thought that risk prediction models can be harnessed to guide preventive interventions. While the number of ICU-AW risk prediction models is increasing, the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice remain unclear.</span></div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this study was to systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for ICU-AW.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library<span>, Embase<span>, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database) from inception to October 2023 for studies on ICU-AW risk prediction models. Two independent researchers screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies.</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>A total of 2709 articles were identified. After screening, 25 articles were selected, encompassing 25 risk prediction models. The area under the curve for these models ranged from 0.681 to 0.926. Evaluation of bias risk indicated that all included models exhibited a high risk of bias, with three models demonstrating poor applicability. The top five predictors among these models were </span>mechanical ventilation<span> duration, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, blood lactate levels, and the length of ICU stay. The combined area under the curve of the ten validation models was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.77–0.88), indicating a strong discriminative ability.</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Overall, ICU-AW risk prediction models demonstrate promising discriminative ability. However, further optimisation is needed to address limitations, including data source heterogeneity, potential biases in study design, and the need for robust statistical validation. Future efforts should prioritise external validation of existing models or the development of high-quality predictive models with superior performance.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>The protocol for this study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42023453187).</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101066\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1036731424000900\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1036731424000900","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重症监护病房(ICU)获得性乏力(ICU-AW)是一种严重的并发症,会显著恶化患者的预后。人们普遍认为,可以利用风险预测模型来指导预防性干预措施。虽然 ICU-AW 风险预测模型的数量在不断增加,但这些模型的质量和在临床实践中的适用性仍不明确:本研究旨在系统回顾已发表的有关 ICU-AW 风险预测模型的研究:我们检索了从开始到2023年10月的电子数据库(PubMed、Web of Science、The Cochrane Library、Embase、Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)、China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)、China Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP)和Wanfang Database)中关于ICU-AW风险预测模型的研究。两位独立研究人员筛选文献、提取数据,并对纳入研究的偏倚风险和适用性进行评估:结果:共发现 2709 篇文章。经过筛选,选出了 25 篇文章,包括 25 个风险预测模型。这些模型的曲线下面积从 0.681 到 0.926 不等。对偏倚风险的评估表明,所有纳入的模型都表现出较高的偏倚风险,其中三个模型的适用性较差。在这些模型中,排在前五位的预测因素分别是机械通气持续时间、年龄、急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分、血乳酸水平和重症监护室住院时间。十个验证模型的综合曲线下面积为 0.83(95% 置信区间:0.77-0.88),显示出很强的判别能力:总体而言,ICU-AW 风险预测模型显示出了良好的判别能力。结论:总体而言,ICU-AW 风险预测模型表现出了良好的判别能力,但仍需进一步优化以解决局限性问题,包括数据来源的异质性、研究设计中的潜在偏差以及稳健的统计验证需求。未来的工作应优先考虑对现有模型进行外部验证,或开发具有卓越性能的高质量预测模型:本研究的方案已在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews)注册(注册号:CRD42023453187)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk prediction models for intensive care unit–acquired weakness in critically ill patients: A systematic review

Background

Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is a critical complication that significantly worsens patient prognosis. It is widely thought that risk prediction models can be harnessed to guide preventive interventions. While the number of ICU-AW risk prediction models is increasing, the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice remain unclear.

Objective

The objective of this study was to systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for ICU-AW.

Methods

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database) from inception to October 2023 for studies on ICU-AW risk prediction models. Two independent researchers screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies.

Results

A total of 2709 articles were identified. After screening, 25 articles were selected, encompassing 25 risk prediction models. The area under the curve for these models ranged from 0.681 to 0.926. Evaluation of bias risk indicated that all included models exhibited a high risk of bias, with three models demonstrating poor applicability. The top five predictors among these models were mechanical ventilation duration, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, blood lactate levels, and the length of ICU stay. The combined area under the curve of the ten validation models was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.77–0.88), indicating a strong discriminative ability.

Conclusions

Overall, ICU-AW risk prediction models demonstrate promising discriminative ability. However, further optimisation is needed to address limitations, including data source heterogeneity, potential biases in study design, and the need for robust statistical validation. Future efforts should prioritise external validation of existing models or the development of high-quality predictive models with superior performance.

Registration

The protocol for this study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42023453187).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Wellbeing as perceived and experienced by intensive care unit nurses: An interpretive qualitative analysis Employer-provided wellbeing support for nurses working in intensive care units: A national cross-sectional study Understanding crisis needs among family caregivers of patients in critical care: A qualitative analysis Antidepressant use, but not polypharmacy, is associated with worse outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest in older people “Because I couldn't understand and respond”: A mixed-method study examining the impact of language barriers on patient experiences of intensive care unit outreach team care
×
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