预测成人心脏手术围手术期异体红细胞输注的预后模型:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Pub Date : 2024-12-26 DOI:10.1111/trf.18108
Raf Van den Eynde, Annemarie Vrancken, Ruben Foubert, Krizia Tuand, Thomas Vandendriessche, An Schrijvers, Peter Verbrugghe, Timothy Devos, Ben Van Calster, Steffen Rex
{"title":"预测成人心脏手术围手术期异体红细胞输注的预后模型:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Raf Van den Eynde, Annemarie Vrancken, Ruben Foubert, Krizia Tuand, Thomas Vandendriessche, An Schrijvers, Peter Verbrugghe, Timothy Devos, Ben Van Calster, Steffen Rex","doi":"10.1111/trf.18108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Identifying cardiac surgical patients at risk of requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is crucial for optimizing their outcome. We critically appraised prognostic models preoperatively predicting perioperative exposure to RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery and summarized model performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies developing and/or externally validating models preoperatively predicting perioperative RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery. Information sources MEDLINE, CENTRAL & CDSR, Embase, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of bias and applicability: Quality of reporting was assessed with the Transparent Reporting of studies on prediction models for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis adherence form, and risk of bias and applicability with the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Random-effects meta-analyses of concordance-statistics and total observed:expected ratios for models externally validated ≥5 times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine model development, and 27 external validation studies were included. The average TRIPOD adherence score was 66.4% (range 44.1%-85.2%). All studies but 1 were rated high risk of bias. For TRUST and TRACK, the only models externally validated ≥5 times, summary c-statistics were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84; 6 contributing studies) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75; 5 contributing studies) respectively, and summary total observed:expected ratios were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-1.05; 5 contributing studies) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-1.19; 5 contributing studies), respectively. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in all meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Future high quality external validation and model updating studies which strictly adhere to reporting guidelines, are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":23266,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic models for prediction of perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in adult cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Raf Van den Eynde, Annemarie Vrancken, Ruben Foubert, Krizia Tuand, Thomas Vandendriessche, An Schrijvers, Peter Verbrugghe, Timothy Devos, Ben Van Calster, Steffen Rex\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/trf.18108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Identifying cardiac surgical patients at risk of requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is crucial for optimizing their outcome. We critically appraised prognostic models preoperatively predicting perioperative exposure to RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery and summarized model performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies developing and/or externally validating models preoperatively predicting perioperative RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery. Information sources MEDLINE, CENTRAL & CDSR, Embase, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of bias and applicability: Quality of reporting was assessed with the Transparent Reporting of studies on prediction models for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis adherence form, and risk of bias and applicability with the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Random-effects meta-analyses of concordance-statistics and total observed:expected ratios for models externally validated ≥5 times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine model development, and 27 external validation studies were included. The average TRIPOD adherence score was 66.4% (range 44.1%-85.2%). All studies but 1 were rated high risk of bias. For TRUST and TRACK, the only models externally validated ≥5 times, summary c-statistics were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84; 6 contributing studies) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75; 5 contributing studies) respectively, and summary total observed:expected ratios were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-1.05; 5 contributing studies) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-1.19; 5 contributing studies), respectively. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in all meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Future high quality external validation and model updating studies which strictly adhere to reporting guidelines, are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.18108\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.18108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:识别心脏手术患者需要红细胞(RBC)输血的风险是优化其结果的关键。我们对成人心脏手术患者术前预测围手术期红细胞输血暴露的预后模型进行了批判性评估,并总结了模型的性能。方法:设计:系统评价和荟萃分析。研究资格标准:研究开发和/或外部验证模型术前预测围手术期红细胞输血成人心脏手术。信息来源:MEDLINE, CENTRAL & CDSR, Embase,输血证据库,Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP。偏倚风险和适用性:采用《个体预后或诊断依从性预测模型研究透明报告》评估报告质量,采用《预测模型偏倚风险评估工具》评估报告的偏倚风险和适用性。综合方法:对外部验证≥5次的模型进行一致性统计和总观察值的随机效应荟萃分析。结果:纳入9个模型开发和27个外部验证研究。平均依从性评分为66.4%(44.1% ~ 85.2%)。除1项研究外,所有研究均被评为高偏倚风险。对于TRUST和TRACK,只有外部验证≥5次的模型,汇总c统计量为0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84;6个有贡献的研究)和0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75;5个有贡献的研究),总的观察:预期比值为0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-1.05;5个有贡献的研究)和0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-1.19;5项贡献研究)。在所有的荟萃分析中都观察到相当大的异质性。讨论:未来严格遵循报告指南的高质量外部验证和模型更新研究是有保证的。
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
Prognostic models for prediction of perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in adult cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Identifying cardiac surgical patients at risk of requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is crucial for optimizing their outcome. We critically appraised prognostic models preoperatively predicting perioperative exposure to RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery and summarized model performance.

Methods: Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study eligibility criteria: Studies developing and/or externally validating models preoperatively predicting perioperative RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery. Information sources MEDLINE, CENTRAL & CDSR, Embase, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of bias and applicability: Quality of reporting was assessed with the Transparent Reporting of studies on prediction models for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis adherence form, and risk of bias and applicability with the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool.

Synthesis methods: Random-effects meta-analyses of concordance-statistics and total observed:expected ratios for models externally validated ≥5 times.

Results: Nine model development, and 27 external validation studies were included. The average TRIPOD adherence score was 66.4% (range 44.1%-85.2%). All studies but 1 were rated high risk of bias. For TRUST and TRACK, the only models externally validated ≥5 times, summary c-statistics were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84; 6 contributing studies) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75; 5 contributing studies) respectively, and summary total observed:expected ratios were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-1.05; 5 contributing studies) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-1.19; 5 contributing studies), respectively. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in all meta-analyses.

Discussion: Future high quality external validation and model updating studies which strictly adhere to reporting guidelines, are warranted.

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
Transfusion
Transfusion 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
20.70%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: TRANSFUSION is the foremost publication in the world for new information regarding transfusion medicine. Written by and for members of AABB and other health-care workers, TRANSFUSION reports on the latest technical advances, discusses opposing viewpoints regarding controversial issues, and presents key conference proceedings. In addition to blood banking and transfusion medicine topics, TRANSFUSION presents submissions concerning patient blood management, tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular, and gene therapies.
期刊最新文献
Misoprostol administration mimicking a febrile transfusion reaction. Low-titer group O whole blood implementation in a tertiary care hospital in Estonia. Quality of whole blood stored in room temperature for up to 5 days. Use of an anti-D-alloimmunization kinetics model to correct the interval censored D-alloimmunization rate following red blood cell transfusions. An in silico simulation of the frequency of administering HLA-incompatible low titer group O whole blood units when the donor pool includes unscreened female donors.
×
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