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。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Biological research for nursing Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1177/10998004221131993
Qi-Fang Huang, Yin-Chu Hu, Chong-Kun Wang, Jing Huang, Mei-Di Shen, Li-Hua Ren
{"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,&nbsp;Yin-Chu Hu,&nbsp;Chong-Kun Wang,&nbsp;Jing Huang,&nbsp;Mei-Di Shen,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Yin-Chu Hu,&nbsp;Chong-Kun Wang,&nbsp;Jing Huang,&nbsp;Mei-Di Shen,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)是一种常见的妊娠并发症,严重影响母亲和孩子的健康。早期预测GDM的风险可能允许及时和有效的干预。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在总结妊娠期糖尿病早期预测模型研究的研究特点、方法学质量和模型性能。方法:检索自成立之日至2022年3月19日的5个电子数据库、1个临床试验注册库和灰色文献。研究开发或验证妊娠早期预测模型的GDM包括在内。两名审稿人根据既定的检查表独立提取数据,并通过预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估偏倚风险。我们使用随机效应模型对至少三次外部验证的模型的预测能力进行定量荟萃分析。结果:我们确定了43项模型开发研究,6项模型开发和外部验证研究,5项仅外部验证研究。体重指数、母亲年龄和空腹血糖是所有模型中最常见的预测因子。对其中8个模型的性能指标进行了多重估计。总结估计范围从0.68到0.78 (I2范围从0%到97%)。结论:大多数研究被评估为具有高总体偏倚风险。只有8个GDM预测模型得到了至少3次的外部验证。未来的研究需要集中在更新和外部验证现有的模型。
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
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.

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
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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)
期刊最新文献
Epigenetic Aging Associations With Psychoneurological Symptoms and Social Functioning in Adults With Sickle Cell Disease Caffeine and Sleep in Preventing Post-spinal Headache: Which One is More Effective? The Impact of Resistance Exercise Training on Glycemic Control Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials 2023 International Society of Nurses in Genetics (ISONG) World Congress: Meeting Overview Wii Fit-Based Biofeedback Rehabilitation Among Post-Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
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