Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Mortality in General Medical Patients: A Systematic Review

Yousif M. Hydoub , Andrew P. Walker , Robert W. Kirchoff , Hossam M. Alzu'bi , Patricia Y. Chipi , Danielle J. Gerberi , M. Caroline Burton , M. Hassan Murad , Sagar B. Dugani
{"title":"Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Mortality in General Medical Patients: A Systematic Review","authors":"Yousif M. Hydoub ,&nbsp;Andrew P. Walker ,&nbsp;Robert W. Kirchoff ,&nbsp;Hossam M. Alzu'bi ,&nbsp;Patricia Y. Chipi ,&nbsp;Danielle J. Gerberi ,&nbsp;M. Caroline Burton ,&nbsp;M. Hassan Murad ,&nbsp;Sagar B. Dugani","doi":"10.1016/j.ajmo.2023.100044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To systematically review contemporary prediction models for hospital mortality developed or validated in general medical patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We screened articles in five databases, from January 1, 2010, through April 7, 2022, and the bibliography of articles selected for final inclusion. We assessed the quality for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and extracted data using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. Two investigators independently screened each article, assessed quality, and extracted data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 20,424 unique articles, we identified 15 models in 8 studies across 10 countries. The studies included 280,793 general medical patients and 19,923 hospital deaths. Models included 7 early warning scores, 2 comorbidities indices, and 6 combination models. Ten models were studied in all general medical patients (general models) and 7 in general medical patients with infection (infection models). Of the 15 models, 13 were developed using logistic or Poisson regression and 2 using machine learning methods. Also, 4 of 15 models reported on handling of missing values. None of the infection models had high discrimination, whereas 4 of 10 general models had high discrimination (area under curve &gt;0.8). Only 1 model appropriately assessed calibration. All models had high risk of bias; 4 of 10 general models and 5 of 7 infection models had low concern for applicability for general medical patients.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Mortality prediction models for general medical patients were sparse and differed in quality, applicability, and discrimination. These models require hospital-level validation and/or recalibration in general medical patients to guide mortality reduction interventions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72168,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medicine open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medicine open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667036423000146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review contemporary prediction models for hospital mortality developed or validated in general medical patients.

Methods

We screened articles in five databases, from January 1, 2010, through April 7, 2022, and the bibliography of articles selected for final inclusion. We assessed the quality for risk of bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and extracted data using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. Two investigators independently screened each article, assessed quality, and extracted data.

Results

From 20,424 unique articles, we identified 15 models in 8 studies across 10 countries. The studies included 280,793 general medical patients and 19,923 hospital deaths. Models included 7 early warning scores, 2 comorbidities indices, and 6 combination models. Ten models were studied in all general medical patients (general models) and 7 in general medical patients with infection (infection models). Of the 15 models, 13 were developed using logistic or Poisson regression and 2 using machine learning methods. Also, 4 of 15 models reported on handling of missing values. None of the infection models had high discrimination, whereas 4 of 10 general models had high discrimination (area under curve >0.8). Only 1 model appropriately assessed calibration. All models had high risk of bias; 4 of 10 general models and 5 of 7 infection models had low concern for applicability for general medical patients.

Conclusion

Mortality prediction models for general medical patients were sparse and differed in quality, applicability, and discrimination. These models require hospital-level validation and/or recalibration in general medical patients to guide mortality reduction interventions.

普通内科病人住院死亡率的风险预测模型:系统综述
目的系统回顾现代在普通医学患者中开发或验证的医院死亡率预测模型。方法从2010年1月1日至2022年4月7日,我们在五个数据库中筛选文章,并选择最终纳入的文章参考书目。我们使用预测模型偏差风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估了偏差风险的质量和适用性,并使用预测建模研究系统评价的关键评估和数据提取(CHARMS)检查表提取数据。两名研究人员对每一篇文章进行独立筛选,评估质量并提取数据。结果从20424篇独特的文章中,我们在10个国家的8项研究中确定了15个模型。这些研究包括280793名普通内科患者和19923名住院死亡患者。模型包括7个早期预警评分、2个合并症指数和6个组合模型。在所有普通医学患者中研究了10个模型(普通模型),在感染的普通医学患者(感染模型)中研究了7个模型。在15个模型中,13个是使用逻辑或泊松回归开发的,2个是使用机器学习方法开发的。此外,15个模型中有4个报告了缺失值的处理情况。感染模型中没有一个具有高辨别力,而10个普通模型中有4个具有高分辨力(曲线下面积>;0.8)。只有1个模型适当地评估了校准。所有模型都存在较高的偏倚风险;10个普通模型中的4个和7个感染模型中的5个对普通医学患者的适用性关注度较低。结论普通医学患者的死亡率预测模型稀疏,在质量、适用性和判别性方面存在差异。这些模型需要在普通医疗患者中进行医院级验证和/或重新校准,以指导降低死亡率的干预措施。
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
American journal of medicine open
American journal of medicine open Medicine and Dentistry (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
×
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