Predicting Harm: A Systematic Review of Pediatric Pressure Injury Models and Their Clinical Shortcomings.

IF 5.7 3区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Xiaojie Zhang, Zhichao Yang, Xiuping Li, Jianan Wang, Rui Pang, Haofen Li, Kanfei Yao, Hongying Pan, Yihong Xu
{"title":"Predicting Harm: A Systematic Review of Pediatric Pressure Injury Models and Their Clinical Shortcomings.","authors":"Xiaojie Zhang, Zhichao Yang, Xiuping Li, Jianan Wang, Rui Pang, Haofen Li, Kanfei Yao, Hongying Pan, Yihong Xu","doi":"10.1177/21621918261455528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>Pediatric pressure injuries (PIs) are a distinct and preventable clinical challenge, yet risk prediction models tailored to children remain underdeveloped. This systematic review critically evaluates existing pediatric PI prediction models to assess their methodological rigor, predictive performance, and clinical applicability.</p><p><strong>Recent advances: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines, nine databases were searched to identify studies developing or validating PI risk prediction models for hospitalized patients younger than 18 years. Twelve models from nine studies were included. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and PROBAST + AI tool.</p><p><strong>Critical issues: </strong>All models demonstrated acceptable discrimination (area under the curve [AUC] range: 0.612-0.978), with seven exceeding an AUC of 0.75. However, calibration was inconsistently reported, and only two models evaluated clinical utility-just one showed net benefit across a realistic threshold range. All models were rated as high risk of bias, and 10 had major concerns regarding applicability. Common methodological flaws included low events per variable <10, inappropriate categorization of continuous variables, poor handling of missing data, and lack of external validation. Most models were developed in single-center studies from China, limiting generalizability. Compared with adult PI models, pediatric models lacked age stratification, standardized outcome definitions, and robust validation. The first application of PROBAST + AI for evaluating machine learning prediction models highlighted algorithmic fairness and ethical risks within these models, but it showed insufficient interpretability regarding aspects such as the optimization process and the transparency of \"black box\" data leakage.</p><p><strong>Future directions: </strong>To improve predictive accuracy and clinical relevance, future models should adopt the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis, PROBAST, and PROBAST + AI standards, use multicenter data, stratify by age and clinical setting, and focus on early-stage PIs. Incorporating objective measures and evaluating clinical utility will enhance model integration into practice. PROBAST + AI, in alignment with the advancements in information technology, requires widespread attention for its practical utility and ease of use to be further validated and optimized.[Figure: see text][Figure: see text]Conclusion:Current pediatric PI prediction models show promise but fall short in methodological rigor and clinical applicability. Addressing these gaps is essential to support early identification and targeted prevention in pediatric care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7413,"journal":{"name":"Advances in wound care","volume":" ","pages":"21621918261455528"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-09","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/10.1177/21621918261455528","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: Pediatric pressure injuries (PIs) are a distinct and preventable clinical challenge, yet risk prediction models tailored to children remain underdeveloped. This systematic review critically evaluates existing pediatric PI prediction models to assess their methodological rigor, predictive performance, and clinical applicability.

Recent advances: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines, nine databases were searched to identify studies developing or validating PI risk prediction models for hospitalized patients younger than 18 years. Twelve models from nine studies were included. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and PROBAST + AI tool.

Critical issues: All models demonstrated acceptable discrimination (area under the curve [AUC] range: 0.612-0.978), with seven exceeding an AUC of 0.75. However, calibration was inconsistently reported, and only two models evaluated clinical utility-just one showed net benefit across a realistic threshold range. All models were rated as high risk of bias, and 10 had major concerns regarding applicability. Common methodological flaws included low events per variable <10, inappropriate categorization of continuous variables, poor handling of missing data, and lack of external validation. Most models were developed in single-center studies from China, limiting generalizability. Compared with adult PI models, pediatric models lacked age stratification, standardized outcome definitions, and robust validation. The first application of PROBAST + AI for evaluating machine learning prediction models highlighted algorithmic fairness and ethical risks within these models, but it showed insufficient interpretability regarding aspects such as the optimization process and the transparency of "black box" data leakage.

Future directions: To improve predictive accuracy and clinical relevance, future models should adopt the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis, PROBAST, and PROBAST + AI standards, use multicenter data, stratify by age and clinical setting, and focus on early-stage PIs. Incorporating objective measures and evaluating clinical utility will enhance model integration into practice. PROBAST + AI, in alignment with the advancements in information technology, requires widespread attention for its practical utility and ease of use to be further validated and optimized.[Figure: see text][Figure: see text]Conclusion:Current pediatric PI prediction models show promise but fall short in methodological rigor and clinical applicability. Addressing these gaps is essential to support early identification and targeted prevention in pediatric care.

预测危害:儿童压力损伤模型及其临床缺陷的系统综述。
意义:儿童压力损伤(pi)是一种独特且可预防的临床挑战,但针对儿童的风险预测模型仍不发达。本系统综述对现有儿科PI预测模型进行了批判性评估,以评估其方法的严谨性、预测性能和临床适用性。最新进展:根据系统评价和荟萃分析2020指南的首选报告项目,检索了9个数据库,以确定开发或验证18岁以下住院患者PI风险预测模型的研究。纳入了来自9项研究的12个模型。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)和PROBAST + AI工具评估偏倚风险和适用性。关键问题:所有模型都表现出可接受的辨别能力(曲线下面积[AUC]范围:0.612-0.978),其中7个模型的AUC超过0.75。然而,校准报告不一致,只有两个模型评估了临床效用,只有一个在现实阈值范围内显示净收益。所有模型都被评为高风险偏倚,其中10个模型主要关注适用性。常见的方法缺陷包括每个变量的事件数低。未来方向:为了提高预测准确性和临床相关性,未来的模型应采用“个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型透明报告”、PROBAST和PROBAST + AI标准,使用多中心数据,按年龄和临床环境分层,并关注早期pi。纳入客观测量和评估临床效用将提高模型与实践的结合。PROBAST + AI与信息技术的进步保持一致,需要广泛关注其实用性和易用性,以进一步验证和优化。【图:见文】【图:见文】结论:目前的儿科PI预测模型具有良好的前景,但在方法严谨性和临床适用性方面存在不足。解决这些差距对于支持儿科护理的早期识别和有针对性的预防至关重要。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书