Risk Prediction Models of Subsyndromal Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Fei Wu, Tong Wang, Yana Xing, Weixin Cai, Ran Zhang
{"title":"Risk Prediction Models of Subsyndromal Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Fei Wu, Tong Wang, Yana Xing, Weixin Cai, Ran Zhang","doi":"10.1111/nicc.70063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of predictive models for assessing the risk of subsyndromal delirium (SSD) in critically ill patients is increasing, yet the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To systematically review and critically evaluate the existing risk prediction models.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Eleven Chinese and English databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, were searched from their inception to August 16, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and applicability using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 17.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were included. The SSD incidence in ICU patients ranged from 8.97% to 34.5%. The most commonly used predictors were the APACHE II score and age. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.788 to 0.923, with the pooled AUC value for the five validated models being 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). Six studies had a high risk of bias, while two had an unclear risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The eight included models demonstrated good performance in early identification and screening of high-risk critically ill patients for SSD, but they all exhibited a high risk of bias regarding model quality.</p><p><strong>Relevance to clinical practice: </strong>ICU professionals should carefully select and validate existing models based on their specific clinical settings before applying them. Alternatively, they can conduct new models incorporating multimodal data and artificial intelligence algorithms, utilizing large sample sizes, robust research designs and multi-center external validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51264,"journal":{"name":"Nursing in Critical Care","volume":"30 3","pages":"e70063"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.70063","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 predictive models for assessing the risk of subsyndromal delirium (SSD) in critically ill patients is increasing, yet the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice remain unclear.

Aim: To systematically review and critically evaluate the existing risk prediction models.

Study design: Eleven Chinese and English databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, were searched from their inception to August 16, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and applicability using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 17.0.

Results: Eight studies were included. The SSD incidence in ICU patients ranged from 8.97% to 34.5%. The most commonly used predictors were the APACHE II score and age. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.788 to 0.923, with the pooled AUC value for the five validated models being 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). Six studies had a high risk of bias, while two had an unclear risk.

Conclusions: The eight included models demonstrated good performance in early identification and screening of high-risk critically ill patients for SSD, but they all exhibited a high risk of bias regarding model quality.

Relevance to clinical practice: ICU professionals should carefully select and validate existing models based on their specific clinical settings before applying them. Alternatively, they can conduct new models incorporating multimodal data and artificial intelligence algorithms, utilizing large sample sizes, robust research designs and multi-center external validation.

危重病人亚综合征性谵妄的风险预测模型:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:用于评估危重患者亚综合征性谵妄(SSD)风险的预测模型越来越多,但这些模型在临床实践中的质量和适用性尚不清楚。目的:系统地回顾和批判性地评价现有的风险预测模型。研究设计:检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase等11个中英文数据库,检索时间为数据库建立至2024年8月16日。两位研究者独立筛选文献,提取数据,并使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具评估偏倚风险和适用性。meta分析采用Stata 17.0进行。结果:纳入8项研究。ICU患者SSD发生率为8.97% ~ 34.5%。最常用的预测指标是APACHE II评分和年龄。报告的曲线下面积(AUC)范围为0.788 ~ 0.923,5个验证模型的合并AUC值为0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 ~ 0.92)。6项研究存在高偏倚风险,2项风险不明确。结论:纳入的8个模型在SSD高危危重患者的早期识别和筛查方面表现良好,但在模型质量方面均存在较高的偏倚风险。与临床实践的相关性:ICU专业人员在应用之前应根据其具体的临床环境仔细选择和验证现有模型。或者,他们可以利用大样本量、稳健的研究设计和多中心外部验证,建立结合多模态数据和人工智能算法的新模型。
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
6.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing in Critical Care is an international peer-reviewed journal covering any aspect of critical care nursing practice, research, education or management. Critical care nursing is defined as the whole spectrum of skills, knowledge and attitudes utilised by practitioners in any setting where adults or children, and their families, are experiencing acute and critical illness. Such settings encompass general and specialist hospitals, and the community. Nursing in Critical Care covers the diverse specialities of critical care nursing including surgery, medicine, cardiac, renal, neurosciences, haematology, obstetrics, accident and emergency, neonatal nursing and paediatrics. Papers published in the journal normally fall into one of the following categories: -research reports -literature reviews -developments in practice, education or management -reflections on practice
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信