MELD和Child-Turcotte-Pugh评分对接受TIPS置管患者存活率的预测准确性比较:系统性荟萃分析综述。

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
International journal of clinical and experimental medicine Pub Date : 2015-08-15 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01
Chunze Zhou, Changlong Hou, Delei Cheng, Wenjing Tang, Weifu Lv
{"title":"MELD和Child-Turcotte-Pugh评分对接受TIPS置管患者存活率的预测准确性比较:系统性荟萃分析综述。","authors":"Chunze Zhou, Changlong Hou, Delei Cheng, Wenjing Tang, Weifu Lv","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores have been used commonly to predict the survival in the patients with liver diseases underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). However, a debate has continued for years whether CTP could be replaced by MELD score. We performed a systematic meta-analytic review to compare the prediction capability of both scores in survival among patients with TIPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort studies among patients with TIPS were published as of May 2013 were identified by systematically searching four electronic literature database, such as Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. The difference of standardized mean difference (SMD) of c-statistics for the predictive accuracy of 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month survival for both MELD and CP scores, defined as effect size (ES), was calculated for each individual study and then pooled across studies using standard meta-analyses with a random effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Kendall's rank correlation tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>174 researches articles or conference abstracts were searched and reviewed using the combination of relevant terms in the articles. Finally, 11 articles were defined as eligible studies to evaluate simultaneously the predictive accuracy of MELD and CTP scores. In the meta-analyses, MELD score was superior to CP score in predicting 3-month survival after TIPS (mean ES, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-1.14; P=0.01), but the predictive capability in 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month survival was not significant (1-month: mean ES, 0.79; 95% CI, -0.24-1.83; P=0.13; 6-month: mean ES, 0.46; 95% CI, -2.46-3.37; P=0.76; 12-month: mean ES, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.25-0.96; P=0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No enough evidence are confirmed so far that MELD score is better than CTP score to assess the overall prognosis after TIPS, especially long-term predictions, but 3-month predictive capability of MELD score significantly outperform CTP score.</p>","PeriodicalId":13892,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical and experimental medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612968/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive accuracy comparison of MELD and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores for survival in patients underwent TIPS placement: a systematic meta-analytic review.\",\"authors\":\"Chunze Zhou, Changlong Hou, Delei Cheng, Wenjing Tang, Weifu Lv\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores have been used commonly to predict the survival in the patients with liver diseases underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). However, a debate has continued for years whether CTP could be replaced by MELD score. We performed a systematic meta-analytic review to compare the prediction capability of both scores in survival among patients with TIPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort studies among patients with TIPS were published as of May 2013 were identified by systematically searching four electronic literature database, such as Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. The difference of standardized mean difference (SMD) of c-statistics for the predictive accuracy of 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month survival for both MELD and CP scores, defined as effect size (ES), was calculated for each individual study and then pooled across studies using standard meta-analyses with a random effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Kendall's rank correlation tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>174 researches articles or conference abstracts were searched and reviewed using the combination of relevant terms in the articles. Finally, 11 articles were defined as eligible studies to evaluate simultaneously the predictive accuracy of MELD and CTP scores. In the meta-analyses, MELD score was superior to CP score in predicting 3-month survival after TIPS (mean ES, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-1.14; P=0.01), but the predictive capability in 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month survival was not significant (1-month: mean ES, 0.79; 95% CI, -0.24-1.83; P=0.13; 6-month: mean ES, 0.46; 95% CI, -2.46-3.37; P=0.76; 12-month: mean ES, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.25-0.96; P=0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No enough evidence are confirmed so far that MELD score is better than CTP score to assess the overall prognosis after TIPS, especially long-term predictions, but 3-month predictive capability of MELD score significantly outperform CTP score.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of clinical and experimental medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612968/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of clinical and experimental medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical and experimental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Child-Turcotte-Pugh(CTP)和终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分已被普遍用于预测接受经颈静脉肝内门体系统分流术(TIPS)的肝病患者的存活率。然而,CTP 是否能被 MELD 评分取代的争论已持续多年。我们进行了一项系统性荟萃分析综述,以比较两种评分对 TIPS 患者生存率的预测能力:通过系统检索 Ovid Medline、PubMed、EMBASE 和 ISI Web of Science 等 4 个电子文献数据库,确定了截至 2013 年 5 月发表的 TIPS 患者回顾性队列研究。计算了每项研究对 MELD 和 CP 评分的 1、3、6 和 12 个月生存率预测准确性的 c 统计量的标准化平均差 (SMD) 差异,将其定义为效应大小 (ES),然后使用随机效应模型进行标准荟萃分析,汇总各项研究。采用漏斗图和 Kendall 秩相关检验对发表偏倚进行评估:使用文章中的相关术语组合检索和审查了 174 篇研究文章或会议摘要。最后,11 篇文章被定义为符合条件的研究,可同时评估 MELD 和 CTP 评分的预测准确性。在荟萃分析中,MELD 评分在预测 TIPS 术后 3 个月生存率方面优于 CP 评分(平均 ES,0.63;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.13-1.14;P=0.01),但对1个月、6个月和12个月生存期的预测能力不显著(1个月:平均ES,0.79;95% CI,-0.24-1.83;P=0.13;6个月:平均ES,0.46;95% CI,-2.46-3.37;P=0.76;12个月:平均ES,0.36;95% CI,-0.25-0.96;P=0.25):到目前为止,还没有足够的证据证实MELD评分比CTP评分更适合评估TIPS术后的总体预后,尤其是长期预测,但MELD评分的3个月预测能力明显优于CTP评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predictive accuracy comparison of MELD and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores for survival in patients underwent TIPS placement: a systematic meta-analytic review.

Background: Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores have been used commonly to predict the survival in the patients with liver diseases underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). However, a debate has continued for years whether CTP could be replaced by MELD score. We performed a systematic meta-analytic review to compare the prediction capability of both scores in survival among patients with TIPS.

Methods: Retrospective cohort studies among patients with TIPS were published as of May 2013 were identified by systematically searching four electronic literature database, such as Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. The difference of standardized mean difference (SMD) of c-statistics for the predictive accuracy of 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month survival for both MELD and CP scores, defined as effect size (ES), was calculated for each individual study and then pooled across studies using standard meta-analyses with a random effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Kendall's rank correlation tests.

Results: 174 researches articles or conference abstracts were searched and reviewed using the combination of relevant terms in the articles. Finally, 11 articles were defined as eligible studies to evaluate simultaneously the predictive accuracy of MELD and CTP scores. In the meta-analyses, MELD score was superior to CP score in predicting 3-month survival after TIPS (mean ES, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-1.14; P=0.01), but the predictive capability in 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month survival was not significant (1-month: mean ES, 0.79; 95% CI, -0.24-1.83; P=0.13; 6-month: mean ES, 0.46; 95% CI, -2.46-3.37; P=0.76; 12-month: mean ES, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.25-0.96; P=0.25).

Conclusions: No enough evidence are confirmed so far that MELD score is better than CTP score to assess the overall prognosis after TIPS, especially long-term predictions, but 3-month predictive capability of MELD score significantly outperform CTP score.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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