申请认证 退出

您的申请提交成功

确定 取消

成人住院患者静脉血栓栓塞风险评估模型:系统评价|SCI晨读

2021-09-07 13:41

成人住院患者静脉血栓栓塞风险评估模型:系统评价|SCI晨读


 



分享智慧

共同成长


摘要

介绍

医院获得性血栓形成占所有静脉血栓栓塞 (VTE) 的很大一部分,具有很高的发病率和死亡率。可以通过准确的风险评估和量身定制的药物血栓预防来减少 VTE 。本系统评价旨在确定风险评估模型 (RAM) 用于预测入院患者 VTE 的相对准确性。

方法从建库到 2021 年 2 月,在五个电子数据库(包括 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆)中进行了系统搜索。纳入所有多变量 RAM(或评分系统)预测住院患者发生 VTE风险准确性的研究。两名或多名审查员使用 PROBAST(预测模型偏倚风险评估工具)工具独立进行研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。使用叙事综合来总结研究结果。

结果

在 6355 条记录中,纳入了 51 项研究,包括 24 个经过验证的独特 RAM。大多数研究包括需要医疗护理(21 项研究)、正在接受手术(15 项研究)或接受创伤护理(4 项研究)的住院患者。评估最广泛的 RAM 是 Caprini RAM(22 项研究)、Padua 预测评分(16 项研究)、IMPROVE 模型(8 项研究)、Geneva 风险评分(4 项研究)和 Kucher 评分(4 项研究)。C 统计在研究之间和模型之间存在显着差异,没有一种 RAM 的表现明显优于其他模型。在所有模型中,C 统计量通常很弱(<0.7),有时很好(0.7-0.8),少数很好(>0.8)。同样,敏感性和特异性的估计值变化很大。敏感性估计范围为 12。

结论

现有数据表明 RAM 对 VTE 的预测准确性普遍较差。没有足够的证据和太多的异质性来推荐使用任何特定的 RAM。


Abstract

Introduction Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.

Methods A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.

Results Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7–0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.

Conclusion Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.


Full Text

不感兴趣

看过了

取消

风险,评估,模型,研究,预测

不感兴趣

看过了

取消

相关阅读

赞+1

您的申请提交成功

您的申请提交成功

确定 取消
海报

已收到您的咨询诉求 我们会尽快联系您

添加微信客服 快速领取解决方案 您还可以去留言您想解决的问题
去留言
立即提交