Prediction models for sarcopenia risk in dialysis patients: a systematic review and critical appraisal

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Zhuoer Hou, Xiaoyan Li, Lili Yang, Ting Liu, Hangpeng Lv, Qiuhua Sun
{"title":"Prediction models for sarcopenia risk in dialysis patients: a systematic review and critical appraisal","authors":"Zhuoer Hou,&nbsp;Xiaoyan Li,&nbsp;Lili Yang,&nbsp;Ting Liu,&nbsp;Hangpeng Lv,&nbsp;Qiuhua Sun","doi":"10.1007/s40520-024-02911-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Many studies have developed or validated predictive models to estimate the risk of sarcopenia in dialysis patients, but the quality of model development and the applicability of the models remain unclear.</p><h3>Objective</h3><p>To systematically review and critically evaluate currently available predictive models for sarcopenia in dialysis patients.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched five databases until March 2024. Observational studies that developed or validated predictive models or scoring systems for sarcopenia in dialysis patients were considered eligible. We included studies of adults (≥ 18 years of age) on dialysis and excluded studies that did not validate the predictive model. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors using a standardized data extraction table based on a checklist of key assessments and data extraction for systematic evaluation of predictive modeling research. The quality of the model was assessed using the Predictive Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 104,454 studies screened, 13 studies described 13 predictive models. The incidence of sarcopenia in dialysis patients ranged from 6.6 to 34.4%. The most commonly used predictors were age and body mass index. In the derivation set, the reported area under the curve or C-statistic is between 0.81 and 0.95. The area under the curve reported by the external validation set is between 0.78 and 0.93. All studies had a high risk of bias, mainly due to poor reporting in the outcome and the analysis domains, and three studies had a high risk of bias in terms of applicability.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Future research should focus on validating and improving existing predictive models or developing new models using rigorous methods.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7720,"journal":{"name":"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40520-024-02911-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging Clinical and Experimental Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-024-02911-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Many studies have developed or validated predictive models to estimate the risk of sarcopenia in dialysis patients, but the quality of model development and the applicability of the models remain unclear.

Objective

To systematically review and critically evaluate currently available predictive models for sarcopenia in dialysis patients.

Methods

We systematically searched five databases until March 2024. Observational studies that developed or validated predictive models or scoring systems for sarcopenia in dialysis patients were considered eligible. We included studies of adults (≥ 18 years of age) on dialysis and excluded studies that did not validate the predictive model. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors using a standardized data extraction table based on a checklist of key assessments and data extraction for systematic evaluation of predictive modeling research. The quality of the model was assessed using the Predictive Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

Results

Of the 104,454 studies screened, 13 studies described 13 predictive models. The incidence of sarcopenia in dialysis patients ranged from 6.6 to 34.4%. The most commonly used predictors were age and body mass index. In the derivation set, the reported area under the curve or C-statistic is between 0.81 and 0.95. The area under the curve reported by the external validation set is between 0.78 and 0.93. All studies had a high risk of bias, mainly due to poor reporting in the outcome and the analysis domains, and three studies had a high risk of bias in terms of applicability.

Conclusion

Future research should focus on validating and improving existing predictive models or developing new models using rigorous methods.

透析患者肌肉减少症风险的预测模型:系统回顾和关键评价
许多研究已经开发或验证了预测模型来估计透析患者肌肉减少症的风险,但模型开发的质量和模型的适用性尚不清楚。目的系统回顾和批判性评价透析患者肌肉减少症的现有预测模型。方法系统检索5个数据库至2024年3月。开发或验证透析患者肌肉减少症预测模型或评分系统的观察性研究被认为是合格的。我们纳入了透析成人(≥18岁)的研究,排除了未验证预测模型的研究。数据提取由两位作者独立完成,使用标准化的数据提取表,基于关键评估清单和数据提取,对预测建模研究进行系统评估。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具评估模型的质量。结果在筛选的104454项研究中,13项研究描述了13种预测模型。透析患者肌肉减少症的发生率为6.6 ~ 34.4%。最常用的预测指标是年龄和体重指数。在推导集中,报告的曲线或c统计量下的面积在0.81到0.95之间。外部验证集报告的曲线下面积在0.78 ~ 0.93之间。所有研究都存在高偏倚风险,主要是由于结果和分析领域的报告不佳,三项研究在适用性方面存在高偏倚风险。结论未来的研究应着重于验证和改进现有的预测模型,或采用严谨的方法开发新的预测模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
283
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Aging clinical and experimental research offers a multidisciplinary forum on the progressing field of gerontology and geriatrics. The areas covered by the journal include: biogerontology, neurosciences, epidemiology, clinical gerontology and geriatric assessment, social, economical and behavioral gerontology. “Aging clinical and experimental research” appears bimonthly and publishes review articles, original papers and case reports.
×
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