Risk Prediction Models for Sarcopenia in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Haemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Qing Yang, Wenting Ji, Julan Guo, Han Fu, Hang Li, Jing Gao, Chaoming Hou
{"title":"Risk Prediction Models for Sarcopenia in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Haemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Qing Yang, Wenting Ji, Julan Guo, Han Fu, Hang Li, Jing Gao, Chaoming Hou","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of risk prediction models for sarcopenia in patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) is increasing. However, the quality, applicability, and reporting adherence of these models in clinical practice and future research remain unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for sarcopenia in patients undergoing MHD.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Search relevant domestic and international databases, which were searched from the inception of the databases until November 2023. The Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist was used to extract data. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariate Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was used to assess the reporting adherence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 478 articles were retrieved, and 12 prediction models from 11 articles were included after the screening process. The incidence of sarcopenia in patients undergoing MHD was 16.38%-37.29%. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.73 to 0.955. All studies had a high risk of bias, mainly because of inappropriate data sources and poor reporting in the field of analysis. The combined AUC value of the six validation models was 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.94), indicating that the model had a high discrimination.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the included studies reported to some extent the discrimination of predictive models for sarcopenia in patients undergoing MHD, all studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST checklist, following the reporting guidelines outlined in the TRIPOD statement, and adherence was incomplete in all studies.</p><p><strong>Registration number: </strong>CRD42023476067.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17755","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The number of risk prediction models for sarcopenia in patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) is increasing. However, the quality, applicability, and reporting adherence of these models in clinical practice and future research remain unknown.

Objective: To systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for sarcopenia in patients undergoing MHD.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Methods: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Search relevant domestic and international databases, which were searched from the inception of the databases until November 2023. The Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist was used to extract data. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability. The Transparent Reporting of a Multivariate Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was used to assess the reporting adherence.

Results: A total of 478 articles were retrieved, and 12 prediction models from 11 articles were included after the screening process. The incidence of sarcopenia in patients undergoing MHD was 16.38%-37.29%. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.73 to 0.955. All studies had a high risk of bias, mainly because of inappropriate data sources and poor reporting in the field of analysis. The combined AUC value of the six validation models was 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.94), indicating that the model had a high discrimination.

Conclusion: Although the included studies reported to some extent the discrimination of predictive models for sarcopenia in patients undergoing MHD, all studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST checklist, following the reporting guidelines outlined in the TRIPOD statement, and adherence was incomplete in all studies.

Registration number: CRD42023476067.

维持性血液透析患者 "肌少症 "的风险预测模型:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:维持性血液透析(MHD)患者肌少症风险预测模型的数量正在增加。然而,这些模型在临床实践和未来研究中的质量、适用性和报告依从性仍然未知。目的:系统回顾已发表的MHD患者肌肉减少症风险预测模型的研究。设计:观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:本系统综述遵循PRISMA指南。检索相关的国内外数据库,从数据库建立到2023年11月检索。预测模型研究系统评价的关键评价和数据提取(CHARMS)检查表用于提取数据。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)检查表评估偏倚风险和适用性。使用透明报告个体预后或诊断多变量预测模型(TRIPOD)来评估报告依从性。结果:共检索文献478篇,筛选后纳入11篇文献中的12个预测模型。MHD患者肌少症发生率为16.38% ~ 37.29%。曲线下面积(AUC)为0.73 ~ 0.955。所有的研究都有较高的偏倚风险,主要是由于数据来源不当和分析领域的报告不完善。6个验证模型的综合AUC值为0.91(95%置信区间为0.87 ~ 0.94),表明该模型具有较高的判别性。结论:虽然纳入的研究在一定程度上报告了MHD患者肌肉减少症预测模型的歧视,但根据PROBAST检查表,所有研究都被评估为具有高偏倚风险,遵循TRIPOD声明中概述的报告指南,并且所有研究的依从性都是不完整的。注册号:CRD42023476067。
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
6.40
自引率
2.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice. JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice. We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
×
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