鉴别Takotsubo综合征和急性冠状动脉综合征的诊断模型:一项系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 10.8 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Journal of Heart Failure Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI:10.1002/ejhf.3584
Carlos Diaz‐Arocutipa, Adrian V. Hernandez, Cesar Joel Benites‐Moya, Norma Nicole Gamarra‐Valverde, Rafael Yrivarren‐Cespedes, Javier Torres‐Valencia, Lourdes Vicent
{"title":"鉴别Takotsubo综合征和急性冠状动脉综合征的诊断模型:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Carlos Diaz‐Arocutipa, Adrian V. Hernandez, Cesar Joel Benites‐Moya, Norma Nicole Gamarra‐Valverde, Rafael Yrivarren‐Cespedes, Javier Torres‐Valencia, Lourdes Vicent","doi":"10.1002/ejhf.3584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AimsDifferentiation between patients with Takotsubo syndrome and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a challenge. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate diagnostic predictive models to distinguish both conditions.Methods and resultsWe performed an electronic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus until January 2024. Observational studies that developed and/or validated multivariable diagnostic models to differentiate Takotsubo syndrome from ACS were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We conducted a narrative synthesis of the performance measures of the diagnostic models evaluated in each study. In addition, a random‐effects meta‐analysis of the c‐statistic with its 95% confidence interval (CI) of the InterTAK model was performed. Of 1015 articles, a total of 11 studies (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 4552) were included. We identified eight new diagnostic models and eight were external validation of existing models. The most frequent model was InterTAK (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 4). The reported c‐statistic ranged from 0.77 to 0.97 across all models. Calibration plots were reported only for two models. The summary c‐statistic was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.96) for the InterTAK model. The risk of bias was high for all models and the applicability was of low (50%) or unclear (50%) concern.ConclusionOur review identified multiple diagnostic models to diagnose Takotsubo syndrome. Although most models showed acceptable‐to‐good discriminative performance, calibration measures were almost unreported and the risk of bias was a concern in most studies.","PeriodicalId":164,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Heart Failure","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic models to differentiate Takotsubo syndrome from acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Diaz‐Arocutipa, Adrian V. Hernandez, Cesar Joel Benites‐Moya, Norma Nicole Gamarra‐Valverde, Rafael Yrivarren‐Cespedes, Javier Torres‐Valencia, Lourdes Vicent\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejhf.3584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AimsDifferentiation between patients with Takotsubo syndrome and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a challenge. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate diagnostic predictive models to distinguish both conditions.Methods and resultsWe performed an electronic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus until January 2024. Observational studies that developed and/or validated multivariable diagnostic models to differentiate Takotsubo syndrome from ACS were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We conducted a narrative synthesis of the performance measures of the diagnostic models evaluated in each study. In addition, a random‐effects meta‐analysis of the c‐statistic with its 95% confidence interval (CI) of the InterTAK model was performed. Of 1015 articles, a total of 11 studies (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 4552) were included. We identified eight new diagnostic models and eight were external validation of existing models. The most frequent model was InterTAK (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 4). The reported c‐statistic ranged from 0.77 to 0.97 across all models. Calibration plots were reported only for two models. The summary c‐statistic was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.96) for the InterTAK model. The risk of bias was high for all models and the applicability was of low (50%) or unclear (50%) concern.ConclusionOur review identified multiple diagnostic models to diagnose Takotsubo syndrome. Although most models showed acceptable‐to‐good discriminative performance, calibration measures were almost unreported and the risk of bias was a concern in most studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Heart Failure\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Heart Failure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3584\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Heart Failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3584","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Takotsubo综合征与急性冠脉综合征(ACS)的鉴别仍然是一个挑战。我们进行了系统回顾,以识别和评估诊断预测模型,以区分这两种情况。方法和结果我们在PubMed, EMBASE和Scopus中进行了电子检索,直到2024年1月。建立和/或验证多变量诊断模型以区分Takotsubo综合征和ACS的观察性研究被纳入。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估偏倚风险。我们对每项研究中评估的诊断模型的性能指标进行了叙述性综合。此外,对InterTAK模型的c统计量进行随机效应meta分析,其95%置信区间(CI)。1015篇文章中,共纳入11项研究(n = 4552)。我们确定了8个新的诊断模型,其中8个是对现有模型的外部验证。最常见的模型是InterTAK (n = 4)。所有模型报告的c‐统计量范围为0.77至0.97。只报告了两个模型的校准图。InterTAK模型的总c统计量为0.89(95%置信区间0.73-0.96)。所有模型的偏倚风险都很高,适用性低(50%)或不明确(50%)。结论本综述确定了Takotsubo综合征的多种诊断模型。尽管大多数模型显示出可接受到良好的判别性能,但校准措施几乎没有报告,并且大多数研究中存在偏倚风险。
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
Diagnostic models to differentiate Takotsubo syndrome from acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
AimsDifferentiation between patients with Takotsubo syndrome and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a challenge. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate diagnostic predictive models to distinguish both conditions.Methods and resultsWe performed an electronic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus until January 2024. Observational studies that developed and/or validated multivariable diagnostic models to differentiate Takotsubo syndrome from ACS were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We conducted a narrative synthesis of the performance measures of the diagnostic models evaluated in each study. In addition, a random‐effects meta‐analysis of the c‐statistic with its 95% confidence interval (CI) of the InterTAK model was performed. Of 1015 articles, a total of 11 studies (n = 4552) were included. We identified eight new diagnostic models and eight were external validation of existing models. The most frequent model was InterTAK (n = 4). The reported c‐statistic ranged from 0.77 to 0.97 across all models. Calibration plots were reported only for two models. The summary c‐statistic was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.96) for the InterTAK model. The risk of bias was high for all models and the applicability was of low (50%) or unclear (50%) concern.ConclusionOur review identified multiple diagnostic models to diagnose Takotsubo syndrome. Although most models showed acceptable‐to‐good discriminative performance, calibration measures were almost unreported and the risk of bias was a concern in most studies.
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
European Journal of Heart Failure
European Journal of Heart Failure 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
27.30
自引率
11.50%
发文量
365
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: European Journal of Heart Failure is an international journal dedicated to advancing knowledge in the field of heart failure management. The journal publishes reviews and editorials aimed at improving understanding, prevention, investigation, and treatment of heart failure. It covers various disciplines such as molecular and cellular biology, pathology, physiology, electrophysiology, pharmacology, clinical sciences, social sciences, and population sciences. The journal welcomes submissions of manuscripts on basic, clinical, and population sciences, as well as original contributions on nursing, care of the elderly, primary care, health economics, and other related specialist fields. It is published monthly and has a readership that includes cardiologists, emergency room physicians, intensivists, internists, general physicians, cardiac nurses, diabetologists, epidemiologists, basic scientists focusing on cardiovascular research, and those working in rehabilitation. The journal is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Academic Search, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Science Citation Index.
期刊最新文献
What's new in heart failure? November 2025 Contemporary medical therapy for heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: The OPTIPHARM-HF registry. Pharmacologic pitfalls in heart failure: A guide to drugs that may cause or exacerbate heart failure. A European Journal of Heart Failure expert consensus document. Combination diuretic therapy in acute heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Why healthcare providers' adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy is only half the battle.
×
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:604180095
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