Systematic Review of Clinical Prediction Models for the Risk of Emergency Caesarean Births

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Alexandra Hunt, Laura Bonnett, Jon Heron, Michael Lawton, Gemma Clayton, Gordon Smith, Jane Norman, Louise Kenny, Deborah Lawlor, Abi Merriel, the Options Study Collaborative Group
{"title":"Systematic Review of Clinical Prediction Models for the Risk of Emergency Caesarean Births","authors":"Alexandra Hunt,&nbsp;Laura Bonnett,&nbsp;Jon Heron,&nbsp;Michael Lawton,&nbsp;Gemma Clayton,&nbsp;Gordon Smith,&nbsp;Jane Norman,&nbsp;Louise Kenny,&nbsp;Deborah Lawlor,&nbsp;Abi Merriel,&nbsp;the Options Study Collaborative Group","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Globally, caesarean births (CB), including emergency caesareans births (EmCB), are rising. It is estimated that nearly a third of all births will be CB by 2030.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Identify and summarise the results from studies developing and validating prognostic multivariable models predicting the risk of EmCBs. Ultimately understanding the accuracy of their development, and whether they are operationalised for use in routine clinical practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Strategy</h3>\n \n <p>Studies were identified using databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and Scopus with a search strategy tailored to models predicting EmCBs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Prospective studies developing and validating clinical prediction models, with two or more covariates, to predict risk of EmCB.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Data were extracted onto a proforma using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In total, 8083 studies resulted in 56 unique prediction modelling studies and seven validating studies, with a total of 121 different predictors. Frequently occurring predictors included maternal height, maternal age, parity, BMI and gestational age. PROBAST highlighted 33 studies with low overall bias, and these all internally validated their model. Thirteen studies externally validated; only eight of these were graded an overall low risk of bias. Six models offered applications that could be readily used, but only one provided enough time to offer a planned caesarean birth (pCB). These well-refined models have not been recalibrated since development. Only one model, developed in a relatively low-risk population, with data collected a decade ago, remains useful at 36 weeks for arranging a pCB.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>To improve personalised clinical conversations, there is a pressing need for a model that accurately predicts the timely risk of an EmCB for women across diverse clinical backgrounds.</p>\n \n <p><b>Trial Registration:</b> PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023384439.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 3","pages":"231-240"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17948","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17948","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Globally, caesarean births (CB), including emergency caesareans births (EmCB), are rising. It is estimated that nearly a third of all births will be CB by 2030.

Objectives

Identify and summarise the results from studies developing and validating prognostic multivariable models predicting the risk of EmCBs. Ultimately understanding the accuracy of their development, and whether they are operationalised for use in routine clinical practice.

Search Strategy

Studies were identified using databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and Scopus with a search strategy tailored to models predicting EmCBs.

Selection Criteria

Prospective studies developing and validating clinical prediction models, with two or more covariates, to predict risk of EmCB.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were extracted onto a proforma using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).

Results

In total, 8083 studies resulted in 56 unique prediction modelling studies and seven validating studies, with a total of 121 different predictors. Frequently occurring predictors included maternal height, maternal age, parity, BMI and gestational age. PROBAST highlighted 33 studies with low overall bias, and these all internally validated their model. Thirteen studies externally validated; only eight of these were graded an overall low risk of bias. Six models offered applications that could be readily used, but only one provided enough time to offer a planned caesarean birth (pCB). These well-refined models have not been recalibrated since development. Only one model, developed in a relatively low-risk population, with data collected a decade ago, remains useful at 36 weeks for arranging a pCB.

Conclusion

To improve personalised clinical conversations, there is a pressing need for a model that accurately predicts the timely risk of an EmCB for women across diverse clinical backgrounds.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023384439.

Abstract Image

紧急剖腹产风险临床预测模型的系统回顾
在全球范围内,剖腹产(CB),包括紧急剖腹产(EmCB)的数量正在上升。据估计,到 2030 年,近三分之一的新生儿将采用剖腹产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信