老年髋部骨折患者术后肺炎的预测模型:系统回顾和关键评价。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Clinical Nursing Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1111/jocn.17581
Zhiqiang He, Gaoting Zhong, Wenjin Han, Mengyu Han, Wenbin Wu, Xiaoling Zhou, Yaru Yang, Yu An, Jin Li
{"title":"老年髋部骨折患者术后肺炎的预测模型:系统回顾和关键评价。","authors":"Zhiqiang He, Gaoting Zhong, Wenjin Han, Mengyu Han, Wenbin Wu, Xiaoling Zhou, Yaru Yang, Yu An, Jin Li","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although several models have been developed to predict postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients, no systematic review of the model quality and clinical applicability has been reported.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review and critically appraise existing models for postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>10 databases were systematically searched from inception to April 15, 2024, updated on August 26. Two reviewers independently performed literature selection, information extraction and quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was employed to summarise the characteristics of the models. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>13 studies containing 25 models were included. The prevalence of pneumonia was 9.62% (95% CI: 7.62%-11.62%). Age (53.8%), hypoproteinemia (46.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 30.8%), gender (30.8%), activity of daily living score (ADL, 30.8%) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA, 30.8%) score were the top six predictors. All models reported area under curve (AUC: 0.617-0.996). 9 studies (69.2%) used the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test, calibration curves, or Brier scores to evaluate the calibration. 5 studies (38.5%) performed internal validation, 4 studies (30.8%) performed external validation. All studies had a high risk of bias due to single sample source, inappropriate data processing, inadequate model evaluation, and negligence of calibration and validation. 10 studies (76.9%) had good applicability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prediction models for postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients are still in the developing stage. The validation and evaluation of existing models are poor. Future studies should focus on robust external validation and updating. Additionally, the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis + artificial intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) statement should be followed.</p><p><strong>Relevance to clinical practice: </strong>Prediction models are effective in discriminating postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients, but further external validation and adjustment are still warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction Models for Postoperative Pneumonia in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.\",\"authors\":\"Zhiqiang He, Gaoting Zhong, Wenjin Han, Mengyu Han, Wenbin Wu, Xiaoling Zhou, Yaru Yang, Yu An, Jin Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jocn.17581\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although several models have been developed to predict postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients, no systematic review of the model quality and clinical applicability has been reported.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review and critically appraise existing models for postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>10 databases were systematically searched from inception to April 15, 2024, updated on August 26. Two reviewers independently performed literature selection, information extraction and quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was employed to summarise the characteristics of the models. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>13 studies containing 25 models were included. The prevalence of pneumonia was 9.62% (95% CI: 7.62%-11.62%). Age (53.8%), hypoproteinemia (46.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 30.8%), gender (30.8%), activity of daily living score (ADL, 30.8%) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA, 30.8%) score were the top six predictors. All models reported area under curve (AUC: 0.617-0.996). 9 studies (69.2%) used the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test, calibration curves, or Brier scores to evaluate the calibration. 5 studies (38.5%) performed internal validation, 4 studies (30.8%) performed external validation. All studies had a high risk of bias due to single sample source, inappropriate data processing, inadequate model evaluation, and negligence of calibration and validation. 10 studies (76.9%) had good applicability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prediction models for postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients are still in the developing stage. The validation and evaluation of existing models are poor. Future studies should focus on robust external validation and updating. Additionally, the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis + artificial intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) statement should be followed.</p><p><strong>Relevance to clinical practice: </strong>Prediction models are effective in discriminating postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients, but further external validation and adjustment are still warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17581\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17581","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然已经建立了几个模型来预测老年髋部骨折患者术后肺炎,但尚未有关于模型质量和临床适用性的系统评价报道。目的:系统回顾和批判性评价老年髋部骨折术后肺炎的现有模型。设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:系统检索自建库至2024年4月15日,更新时间为8月26日的10个数据库。两名审稿人独立进行文献选择、信息提取和质量评估。采用叙事综合的方法来总结模型的特点。meta分析采用Stata 17.0进行。结果:共纳入13项研究,共25个模型。肺炎患病率为9.62% (95% CI: 7.62% ~ 11.62%)。年龄(53.8%)、低蛋白血症(46.2%)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD, 30.8%)、性别(30.8%)、日常生活活动评分(ADL, 30.8%)和美国麻醉医师学会(ASA, 30.8%)评分是前六大预测因素。所有模型均报告曲线下面积(AUC: 0.617-0.996)。9项研究(69.2%)使用Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L)检验、校准曲线或Brier评分来评估校准。5项研究(38.5%)进行了内部验证,4项研究(30.8%)进行了外部验证。由于样本来源单一、数据处理不当、模型评估不充分以及忽视校准和验证,所有研究均存在较高的偏倚风险。10项研究(76.9%)适用性较好。结论:老年髋部骨折患者术后肺炎预测模型尚处于发展阶段。现有模型的验证和评价较差。未来的研究应侧重于稳健的外部验证和更新。此外,应遵循“透明报告个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型+人工智能”(TRIPOD+AI)声明。与临床实践的相关性:预测模型在鉴别老年髋部骨折患者术后肺炎方面是有效的,但仍需要进一步的外部验证和调整。
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
Prediction Models for Postoperative Pneumonia in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Background: Although several models have been developed to predict postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients, no systematic review of the model quality and clinical applicability has been reported.

Objective: To systematically review and critically appraise existing models for postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: 10 databases were systematically searched from inception to April 15, 2024, updated on August 26. Two reviewers independently performed literature selection, information extraction and quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was employed to summarise the characteristics of the models. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0.

Results: 13 studies containing 25 models were included. The prevalence of pneumonia was 9.62% (95% CI: 7.62%-11.62%). Age (53.8%), hypoproteinemia (46.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 30.8%), gender (30.8%), activity of daily living score (ADL, 30.8%) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA, 30.8%) score were the top six predictors. All models reported area under curve (AUC: 0.617-0.996). 9 studies (69.2%) used the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test, calibration curves, or Brier scores to evaluate the calibration. 5 studies (38.5%) performed internal validation, 4 studies (30.8%) performed external validation. All studies had a high risk of bias due to single sample source, inappropriate data processing, inadequate model evaluation, and negligence of calibration and validation. 10 studies (76.9%) had good applicability.

Conclusions: Prediction models for postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients are still in the developing stage. The validation and evaluation of existing models are poor. Future studies should focus on robust external validation and updating. Additionally, the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis + artificial intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) statement should be followed.

Relevance to clinical practice: Prediction models are effective in discriminating postoperative pneumonia in elderly hip fracture patients, but further external validation and adjustment are still 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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice. JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice. We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Massage and Touch on Agitation in Dementia: A Meta-Analysis. Enhancing Perioperative Safety and Recovery: Reflections on Psychological Factors in Orthopaedic Day Surgery. Caring Readiness Among Parents of Children Who Have Undergone Liver Transplantation and Are Transitioning From the Intensive Care Unit: A Cross-Sectional Study. Perspectives of Patients Regarding Artificial Intelligence and its Application in Healthcare: Correspondence. The Mediation Effects of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship Between Diabetes-Related Content Exposure and Self-Management Among Older Diabetics: A Cross-Sectional Study.
×
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