{"title":"妊娠早期糖尿病的临床预测模型:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Qi-Fang Huang, Yin-Chu Hu, Chong-Kun Wang, Jing Huang, Mei-Di Shen, Li-Hua Ren","doi":"10.1177/10998004221131993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication that negatively impacts the health of both the mother and child. Early prediction of the risk of GDM may permit prompt and effective interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the study characteristics, methodological quality, and model performance of first-trimester prediction model studies for GDM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five electronic databases, one clinical trial register, and gray literature were searched from the inception date to March 19, 2022. Studies developing or validating a first-trimester prediction model for GDM were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data according to an established checklist and assessed the risk of bias by the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative meta-analysis of the predictive power of models that were externally validated at least three times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 43 model development studies, six model development and external validation studies, and five external validation-only studies. Body mass index, maternal age, and fasting plasma glucose were the most commonly included predictors across all models. Multiple estimates of performance measures were available for eight of the models. Summary estimates range from 0.68 to 0.78 (I<sup>2</sup> ranged from 0% to 97%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most studies were assessed as having a high overall risk of bias. Only eight prediction models for GDM have been externally validated at least three times. Future research needs to focus on updating and externally validating existing models.</p>","PeriodicalId":8997,"journal":{"name":"Biological research for nursing","volume":"25 2","pages":"185-197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical First-Trimester Prediction Models for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Qi-Fang Huang, Yin-Chu Hu, Chong-Kun Wang, Jing Huang, Mei-Di Shen, Li-Hua Ren\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10998004221131993\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication that negatively impacts the health of both the mother and child. Early prediction of the risk of GDM may permit prompt and effective interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the study characteristics, methodological quality, and model performance of first-trimester prediction model studies for GDM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five electronic databases, one clinical trial register, and gray literature were searched from the inception date to March 19, 2022. Studies developing or validating a first-trimester prediction model for GDM were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data according to an established checklist and assessed the risk of bias by the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative meta-analysis of the predictive power of models that were externally validated at least three times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 43 model development studies, six model development and external validation studies, and five external validation-only studies. Body mass index, maternal age, and fasting plasma glucose were the most commonly included predictors across all models. Multiple estimates of performance measures were available for eight of the models. Summary estimates range from 0.68 to 0.78 (I<sup>2</sup> ranged from 0% to 97%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most studies were assessed as having a high overall risk of bias. Only eight prediction models for GDM have been externally validated at least three times. Future research needs to focus on updating and externally validating existing models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological research for nursing\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"185-197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological research for nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10998004221131993\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological research for nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10998004221131993","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical First-Trimester Prediction Models for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication that negatively impacts the health of both the mother and child. Early prediction of the risk of GDM may permit prompt and effective interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the study characteristics, methodological quality, and model performance of first-trimester prediction model studies for GDM.
Methods: Five electronic databases, one clinical trial register, and gray literature were searched from the inception date to March 19, 2022. Studies developing or validating a first-trimester prediction model for GDM were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data according to an established checklist and assessed the risk of bias by the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative meta-analysis of the predictive power of models that were externally validated at least three times.
Results: We identified 43 model development studies, six model development and external validation studies, and five external validation-only studies. Body mass index, maternal age, and fasting plasma glucose were the most commonly included predictors across all models. Multiple estimates of performance measures were available for eight of the models. Summary estimates range from 0.68 to 0.78 (I2 ranged from 0% to 97%).
Conclusion: Most studies were assessed as having a high overall risk of bias. Only eight prediction models for GDM have been externally validated at least three times. Future research needs to focus on updating and externally validating existing models.
期刊介绍:
Biological Research For Nursing (BRN) is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that helps nurse researchers, educators, and practitioners integrate information from many basic disciplines; biology, physiology, chemistry, health policy, business, engineering, education, communication and the social sciences into nursing research, theory and clinical practice. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)