Prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures after vertebral augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Dan Sun, Yuhang Wen, Qiongge Yu, Yu Long, Yuyan Liu, Yue Zhou, Yufeng Yu
{"title":"Prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures after vertebral augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Dan Sun, Yuhang Wen, Qiongge Yu, Yu Long, Yuyan Liu, Yue Zhou, Yufeng Yu","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-08785-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures (AVF) after vertebral augmentation (VA), thereby providing a reference for constructing and improving such models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and SinoMed were searched from their inception to July 13, 2024. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the prediction model studies; STATA 15.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis on the area under the curve (AUC) values of the model validation and the common predictors used in model construction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 studies were included, establishing 13 risk prediction models, with a total sample size of 3,083 patients. The AUC values of the included models ranged from 0.72 to 0.988. Of the included studies, 11 conducted internal validation, while two performed external validation. According to the PROBAST evaluation, all 13 studies exhibited a high risk of bias, yet demonstrated good applicability. The results of meta-analysis showed that the combined AUC value for the 5 validation models was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97). Notably, bone cement leakage (OR = 5.75, 95% CI: 3.43 ~ 9.60), age (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.36), and a history of vertebral fractures (OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.64 ~ 4.13) were identified as significant high-risk factors for AVF after VA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The risk prediction models for AVF after VA performed well, but exhibited a high risk of bias. It is recommended that future studies should consider selecting more appropriate machine learning algorithms and conducting large-sample, multicenter studies. Meanwhile, healthcare providers should focus on patients with bone cement leakage, advanced age, and a previous history of vertebral fractures, remaining vigilant for the potential occurrence of AVF.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08785-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures (AVF) after vertebral augmentation (VA), thereby providing a reference for constructing and improving such models.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and SinoMed were searched from their inception to July 13, 2024. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the prediction model studies; STATA 15.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis on the area under the curve (AUC) values of the model validation and the common predictors used in model construction.

Results: A total of 13 studies were included, establishing 13 risk prediction models, with a total sample size of 3,083 patients. The AUC values of the included models ranged from 0.72 to 0.988. Of the included studies, 11 conducted internal validation, while two performed external validation. According to the PROBAST evaluation, all 13 studies exhibited a high risk of bias, yet demonstrated good applicability. The results of meta-analysis showed that the combined AUC value for the 5 validation models was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97). Notably, bone cement leakage (OR = 5.75, 95% CI: 3.43 ~ 9.60), age (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.36), and a history of vertebral fractures (OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.64 ~ 4.13) were identified as significant high-risk factors for AVF after VA.

Conclusion: The risk prediction models for AVF after VA performed well, but exhibited a high risk of bias. It is recommended that future studies should consider selecting more appropriate machine learning algorithms and conducting large-sample, multicenter studies. Meanwhile, healthcare providers should focus on patients with bone cement leakage, advanced age, and a previous history of vertebral fractures, remaining vigilant for the potential occurrence of AVF.

椎体增强术后相邻椎体骨折的预测模型:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:系统回顾已发表的椎体增强术(VA)后相邻椎体骨折(AVF)风险预测模型研究,为构建和完善此类模型提供参考。方法:检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、Embase、中国知网(CNKI)、中国科技期刊库(VIP)、万方数据库、中国医学信息网(SinoMed)自建库至2024年7月13日的文献。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估预测模型研究的偏倚风险和适用性;采用STATA 15.0软件对模型验证的曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)值和模型构建常用预测因子进行meta分析。结果:共纳入13项研究,建立13个风险预测模型,总样本量3083例。所纳入模型的AUC值范围为0.72 ~ 0.988。在纳入的研究中,11项进行了内部验证,2项进行了外部验证。根据PROBAST评估,所有13项研究均表现出高偏倚风险,但表现出良好的适用性。meta分析结果显示,5个验证模型的综合AUC值为0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97)。值得注意的是,骨水泥渗漏(OR = 5.75, 95% CI: 3.43 ~ 9.60)、年龄(OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.36)和椎体骨折史(OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.64 ~ 4.13)被认为是VA后AVF的重要高危因素。结论:VA后AVF的风险预测模型效果良好,但存在较高的偏倚风险。建议未来的研究应考虑选择更合适的机器学习算法,并进行大样本、多中心的研究。同时,医护人员应关注骨水泥渗漏、高龄和椎体骨折史的患者,对AVF的潜在发生保持警惕。
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
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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