社区老年人死亡率预测模型:系统性综述。

IF 12.5 1区 医学 Q1 CELL BIOLOGY
Collin J.C. Exmann , Eline C.M. Kooijmans , Karlijn J. Joling , George L. Burchell , Emiel O. Hoogendijk , Hein P.J. van Hout
{"title":"社区老年人死亡率预测模型:系统性综述。","authors":"Collin J.C. Exmann ,&nbsp;Eline C.M. Kooijmans ,&nbsp;Karlijn J. Joling ,&nbsp;George L. Burchell ,&nbsp;Emiel O. Hoogendijk ,&nbsp;Hein P.J. van Hout","doi":"10.1016/j.arr.2024.102525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>As complexity and comorbidities increase with age, the increasing number of community-dwelling older adults poses a challenge to healthcare professionals in making trade-offs between beneficial and harmful treatments, monitoring deteriorating patients and resource allocation. Mortality predictions may help inform these decisions. So far, a systematic overview on the characteristics of currently existing mortality prediction models, is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To provide a systematic overview and assessment of mortality prediction models for the community-dwelling older population.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of terms related to predictive modelling and older adults was performed until March 1st, 2024, in four databases. We included studies developing multivariable all-cause mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65 years). Data extraction followed the CHARMS Checklist and Quality assessment was performed with the PROBAST tool.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 22 studies involving 38 unique mortality prediction models were included, of which 14 models were based on a cumulative deficit-based frailty index and 9 on machine learning. C-statistics of the models ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 for all studies versus 0.61–0.78 when a frailty index was used. Eight models reached c-statistics higher than 0.8 and reported calibration. The most used variables in all models were demographics, symptoms, diagnoses and physical functioning. Five studies accounting for eleven models had a high risk of bias.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Some mortality prediction models showed promising results for use in practice and most studies were of sufficient quality. However, more uniform methodology and validation studies are needed for clinical implementation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55545,"journal":{"name":"Ageing Research Reviews","volume":"101 ","pages":"Article 102525"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Collin J.C. Exmann ,&nbsp;Eline C.M. Kooijmans ,&nbsp;Karlijn J. Joling ,&nbsp;George L. Burchell ,&nbsp;Emiel O. Hoogendijk ,&nbsp;Hein P.J. van Hout\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arr.2024.102525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>As complexity and comorbidities increase with age, the increasing number of community-dwelling older adults poses a challenge to healthcare professionals in making trade-offs between beneficial and harmful treatments, monitoring deteriorating patients and resource allocation. Mortality predictions may help inform these decisions. So far, a systematic overview on the characteristics of currently existing mortality prediction models, is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To provide a systematic overview and assessment of mortality prediction models for the community-dwelling older population.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of terms related to predictive modelling and older adults was performed until March 1st, 2024, in four databases. We included studies developing multivariable all-cause mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65 years). Data extraction followed the CHARMS Checklist and Quality assessment was performed with the PROBAST tool.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 22 studies involving 38 unique mortality prediction models were included, of which 14 models were based on a cumulative deficit-based frailty index and 9 on machine learning. C-statistics of the models ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 for all studies versus 0.61–0.78 when a frailty index was used. Eight models reached c-statistics higher than 0.8 and reported calibration. The most used variables in all models were demographics, symptoms, diagnoses and physical functioning. Five studies accounting for eleven models had a high risk of bias.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Some mortality prediction models showed promising results for use in practice and most studies were of sufficient quality. However, more uniform methodology and validation studies are needed for clinical implementation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ageing Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"101 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102525\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ageing Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156816372400343X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ageing Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156816372400343X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:随着年龄的增长,复杂性和并发症也在增加,越来越多的社区老年人给医护人员带来了挑战,他们需要在有益和有害的治疗之间做出权衡,监控病情恶化的病人,并进行资源分配。死亡率预测有助于为这些决策提供依据。迄今为止,尚缺乏对现有死亡率预测模型特点的系统性概述:对社区老年人口的死亡率预测模型进行系统性概述和评估:截至 2024 年 3 月 1 日,我们在四个数据库中对预测模型和老年人相关术语进行了系统检索。我们纳入了为社区老年人(年龄≥65 岁)开发多变量全因死亡率预测模型的研究。数据提取采用 CHARMS 检查表,质量评估采用 PROBAST 工具:结果:共纳入了 22 项研究,涉及 38 个独特的死亡率预测模型,其中 14 个模型基于基于累积缺陷的虚弱指数,9 个基于机器学习。所有研究的模型 C 统计量在 0.60 至 0.93 之间,而使用虚弱指数的模型 C 统计量在 0.61 至 0.78 之间。有 8 个模型的 C 统计量高于 0.8,并报告了校准结果。所有模型中使用最多的变量是人口统计学、症状、诊断和身体功能。五项研究的 11 个模型存在高偏倚风险:一些死亡率预测模型显示了在实践中使用的良好效果,而且大多数研究的质量都很高。然而,临床应用需要更统一的方法和验证研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review

Introduction

As complexity and comorbidities increase with age, the increasing number of community-dwelling older adults poses a challenge to healthcare professionals in making trade-offs between beneficial and harmful treatments, monitoring deteriorating patients and resource allocation. Mortality predictions may help inform these decisions. So far, a systematic overview on the characteristics of currently existing mortality prediction models, is lacking.

Objective

To provide a systematic overview and assessment of mortality prediction models for the community-dwelling older population.

Methods

A systematic search of terms related to predictive modelling and older adults was performed until March 1st, 2024, in four databases. We included studies developing multivariable all-cause mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65 years). Data extraction followed the CHARMS Checklist and Quality assessment was performed with the PROBAST tool.

Results

A total of 22 studies involving 38 unique mortality prediction models were included, of which 14 models were based on a cumulative deficit-based frailty index and 9 on machine learning. C-statistics of the models ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 for all studies versus 0.61–0.78 when a frailty index was used. Eight models reached c-statistics higher than 0.8 and reported calibration. The most used variables in all models were demographics, symptoms, diagnoses and physical functioning. Five studies accounting for eleven models had a high risk of bias.

Conclusion

Some mortality prediction models showed promising results for use in practice and most studies were of sufficient quality. However, more uniform methodology and validation studies are needed for clinical implementation.
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
Ageing Research Reviews
Ageing Research Reviews 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
19.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
216
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: With the rise in average human life expectancy, the impact of ageing and age-related diseases on our society has become increasingly significant. Ageing research is now a focal point for numerous laboratories, encompassing leaders in genetics, molecular and cellular biology, biochemistry, and behavior. Ageing Research Reviews (ARR) serves as a cornerstone in this field, addressing emerging trends. ARR aims to fill a substantial gap by providing critical reviews and viewpoints on evolving discoveries concerning the mechanisms of ageing and age-related diseases. The rapid progress in understanding the mechanisms controlling cellular proliferation, differentiation, and survival is unveiling new insights into the regulation of ageing. From telomerase to stem cells, and from energy to oxyradical metabolism, we are witnessing an exciting era in the multidisciplinary field of ageing research. The journal explores the cellular and molecular foundations of interventions that extend lifespan, such as caloric restriction. It identifies the underpinnings of manipulations that extend lifespan, shedding light on novel approaches for preventing age-related diseases. ARR publishes articles on focused topics selected from the expansive field of ageing research, with a particular emphasis on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of the aging process. This includes age-related diseases like cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative disorders. The journal also covers applications of basic ageing research to lifespan extension and disease prevention, offering a comprehensive platform for advancing our understanding of this critical field.
×
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