Prediction Models for Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injury of Adults: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

IF 5.8 3区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Yihong Xu, Han Zhao, Shuang Wu, Jianan Wang, Jinyan Zhou, Shanni Ding, Wen Li, Wenjin Wu, Zhichao Yang, Hongxia Xu, Hongying Pan
{"title":"Prediction Models for Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injury of Adults: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.","authors":"Yihong Xu, Han Zhao, Shuang Wu, Jianan Wang, Jinyan Zhou, Shanni Ding, Wen Li, Wenjin Wu, Zhichao Yang, Hongxia Xu, Hongying Pan","doi":"10.1089/wound.2024.0238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Significance:</b> Postoperative Pressure Injuries (PIs) present unique risks, requiring dedicated research for accurate assessment. Despite the increasing number of Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injury (IAPI) prediction models, their risk of bias and clinical applicability remains unclear. <b>Recent Advances:</b> Adhered to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement requirements, IAPI prediction models of adult inpatients (≥18 years) were systematically retrieved from eight databases. Bias risk and applicability were evaluated using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), followed by narrative synthesis. <b>Critical Issues:</b> From 837 studies, 25 were included, covering 32 prediction models. Most studies (88%) were single-center and conducted in China, Korea, the United States, or Singapore, spanning various surgical specialties. Among 26,142 participants, IAPI incidence ranged from 4.1% to 41.75%. Common predictors included surgery duration, age, and diabetes. Areas Under the Curve (AUC) values varied from 0.702 to 0.984, but calibration was underreported. All studies had high bias risk, with 22 models exhibiting applicability concerns. <b>Future Directions:</b> The development of IAPI models requires a clear definition of the timing and personnel responsible for assessing PIs, with a preference for prospective data collection and thorough internal and external validation. Adherence to the critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies checklist and PROBAST guidelines can improve reporting quality. Models should be user-friendly, clinically applicable, and rigorously validated. Precisely defining and rigorously selecting predictors is critical to reducing variability. Future research should adopt more stringent designs to develop high-quality models capable of effectively guiding clinical practice. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024502726.</p>","PeriodicalId":7413,"journal":{"name":"Advances in wound care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in wound care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2024.0238","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Significance: Postoperative Pressure Injuries (PIs) present unique risks, requiring dedicated research for accurate assessment. Despite the increasing number of Intraoperative Acquired Pressure Injury (IAPI) prediction models, their risk of bias and clinical applicability remains unclear. Recent Advances: Adhered to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement requirements, IAPI prediction models of adult inpatients (≥18 years) were systematically retrieved from eight databases. Bias risk and applicability were evaluated using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), followed by narrative synthesis. Critical Issues: From 837 studies, 25 were included, covering 32 prediction models. Most studies (88%) were single-center and conducted in China, Korea, the United States, or Singapore, spanning various surgical specialties. Among 26,142 participants, IAPI incidence ranged from 4.1% to 41.75%. Common predictors included surgery duration, age, and diabetes. Areas Under the Curve (AUC) values varied from 0.702 to 0.984, but calibration was underreported. All studies had high bias risk, with 22 models exhibiting applicability concerns. Future Directions: The development of IAPI models requires a clear definition of the timing and personnel responsible for assessing PIs, with a preference for prospective data collection and thorough internal and external validation. Adherence to the critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies checklist and PROBAST guidelines can improve reporting quality. Models should be user-friendly, clinically applicable, and rigorously validated. Precisely defining and rigorously selecting predictors is critical to reducing variability. Future research should adopt more stringent designs to develop high-quality models capable of effectively guiding clinical practice. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024502726.

成人术中获得性压力损伤的预测模型:系统回顾和关键评价。
意义:术后压力损伤(PIs)具有独特的风险,需要专门的研究来准确评估。尽管术中获得性压力损伤(IAPI)预测模型越来越多,但其偏倚风险和临床适用性尚不清楚。最新进展:根据2020年系统评价和荟萃分析报告的首选报告项目要求,系统地从8个数据库中检索成人住院患者(≥18岁)的IAPI预测模型。采用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估偏倚风险和适用性,然后进行叙事综合。关键问题:从837项研究中,纳入25项研究,涵盖32个预测模型。大多数研究(88%)是单中心的,在中国、韩国、美国或新加坡进行,涵盖了不同的外科专业。在26142名参与者中,IAPI发病率从4.1%到41.75%不等。常见的预测因素包括手术时间、年龄和糖尿病。曲线下面积(AUC)值从0.702到0.984不等,但校准少报。所有的研究都有高偏倚风险,有22个模型表现出适用性问题。未来方向:IAPI模型的发展需要明确定义评估pi的时间和人员,优先考虑前瞻性数据收集和彻底的内部和外部验证。坚持对预测建模研究清单和PROBAST指南进行系统审查的关键评估和数据提取可以提高报告质量。模型应该是用户友好的,临床适用的,并严格验证。精确定义和严格选择预测因子对于减少可变性至关重要。未来的研究应采用更严格的设计,开发能够有效指导临床实践的高质量模型。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024502726。
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
Advances in wound care
Advances in wound care Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
4.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Advances in Wound Care rapidly shares research from bench to bedside, with wound care applications for burns, major trauma, blast injuries, surgery, and diabetic ulcers. The Journal provides a critical, peer-reviewed forum for the field of tissue injury and repair, with an emphasis on acute and chronic wounds. Advances in Wound Care explores novel research approaches and practices to deliver the latest scientific discoveries and developments. Advances in Wound Care coverage includes: Skin bioengineering, Skin and tissue regeneration, Acute, chronic, and complex wounds, Dressings, Anti-scar strategies, Inflammation, Burns and healing, Biofilm, Oxygen and angiogenesis, Critical limb ischemia, Military wound care, New devices and technologies.
×
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