针对儿科患者 30 天院内死亡率的术前风险评分的国际多机构外部验证。

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Virginia E Tangel, Sanne E Hoeks, Robert Jan Stolker, Sydney Brown, Kane O Pryor, Jurgen C de Graaff
{"title":"针对儿科患者 30 天院内死亡率的术前风险评分的国际多机构外部验证。","authors":"Virginia E Tangel, Sanne E Hoeks, Robert Jan Stolker, Sydney Brown, Kane O Pryor, Jurgen C de Graaff","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk prediction scores are used to guide clinical decision-making. Our primary objective was to externally validate two patient-specific risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) registry: the Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) score and the intrinsic surgical risk score. The secondary objective was to recalibrate these scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 56 US and Dutch hospitals with paediatric caseloads were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To assess model discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) were calculated. Model calibration was assessed by plotting the observed and predicted probabilities. Decision analytic curves were fit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day mortality was 0.14% (822/606 488). The AUROC for the PRAm upon external validation was 0.856 (95% confidence interval 0.844-0.869), and the AUC-PR was 0.008. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.873 (0.861-0.886), and the AUC-PR was 0.031. The AUROC for the external validation of the intrinsic surgical risk score was 0.925 (0.914-0.936) and AUC-PR was 0.085. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.925 (0.915-0.936), and the AUC-PR was 0.094. Calibration metrics for both scores were favourable because of the large cluster of cases with low probabilities of mortality. Decision curve analyses showed limited benefit to using either score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The intrinsic surgical risk score performed better than the PRAm, but both resulted in large numbers of false positives. Both scores exhibited decreased performance compared with the original studies. ASA physical status scores in sicker patients drove the superior performance of the intrinsic surgical risk score, suggesting the use of a risk score does not improve prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International multi-institutional external validation of preoperative risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality in paediatric patients.\",\"authors\":\"Virginia E Tangel, Sanne E Hoeks, Robert Jan Stolker, Sydney Brown, Kane O Pryor, Jurgen C de Graaff\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk prediction scores are used to guide clinical decision-making. Our primary objective was to externally validate two patient-specific risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) registry: the Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) score and the intrinsic surgical risk score. The secondary objective was to recalibrate these scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 56 US and Dutch hospitals with paediatric caseloads were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To assess model discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) were calculated. Model calibration was assessed by plotting the observed and predicted probabilities. Decision analytic curves were fit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day mortality was 0.14% (822/606 488). The AUROC for the PRAm upon external validation was 0.856 (95% confidence interval 0.844-0.869), and the AUC-PR was 0.008. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.873 (0.861-0.886), and the AUC-PR was 0.031. The AUROC for the external validation of the intrinsic surgical risk score was 0.925 (0.914-0.936) and AUC-PR was 0.085. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.925 (0.915-0.936), and the AUC-PR was 0.094. Calibration metrics for both scores were favourable because of the large cluster of cases with low probabilities of mortality. Decision curve analyses showed limited benefit to using either score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The intrinsic surgical risk score performed better than the PRAm, but both resulted in large numbers of false positives. Both scores exhibited decreased performance compared with the original studies. ASA physical status scores in sicker patients drove the superior performance of the intrinsic surgical risk score, suggesting the use of a risk score does not improve prediction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:风险预测评分用于指导临床决策。我们的首要目标是利用多中心围手术期结果组(MPOG)登记对两种患者特异性风险评分进行外部验证,以确定其 30 天院内死亡率:儿科风险评估(PRAm)评分和内在手术风险评分。次要目标是重新校准这些评分:方法:纳入 56 家美国和荷兰儿科医院的数据。主要结果是 30 天死亡率。为了评估模型的区分度,计算了接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)和精确度-召回曲线下面积(AUC-PR)。通过绘制观察概率和预测概率来评估模型的校准。拟合了决策分析曲线:30天死亡率为0.14%(822/606488)。外部验证后,PRAm 的 AUROC 为 0.856(95% 置信区间为 0.844-0.869),AUC-PR 为 0.008。重新校准后,AUROC 为 0.873(0.861-0.886),AUC-PR 为 0.031。内在手术风险评分外部验证的 AUROC 为 0.925(0.914-0.936),AUC-PR 为 0.085。重新校准后,AUROC 为 0.925(0.915-0.936),AUC-PR 为 0.094。由于死亡概率较低的病例群较大,因此这两个评分的校准指标都比较理想。决策曲线分析表明,使用这两种评分的益处都很有限:结论:固有手术风险评分的表现优于 PRAm,但两者都导致了大量的假阳性。与最初的研究相比,两种评分的性能都有所下降。病情较重患者的 ASA 身体状况评分促使内在手术风险评分表现更优,这表明使用风险评分并不能提高预测效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
International multi-institutional external validation of preoperative risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality in paediatric patients.

Background: Risk prediction scores are used to guide clinical decision-making. Our primary objective was to externally validate two patient-specific risk scores for 30-day in-hospital mortality using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) registry: the Pediatric Risk Assessment (PRAm) score and the intrinsic surgical risk score. The secondary objective was to recalibrate these scores.

Methods: Data from 56 US and Dutch hospitals with paediatric caseloads were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. To assess model discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) were calculated. Model calibration was assessed by plotting the observed and predicted probabilities. Decision analytic curves were fit.

Results: The 30-day mortality was 0.14% (822/606 488). The AUROC for the PRAm upon external validation was 0.856 (95% confidence interval 0.844-0.869), and the AUC-PR was 0.008. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.873 (0.861-0.886), and the AUC-PR was 0.031. The AUROC for the external validation of the intrinsic surgical risk score was 0.925 (0.914-0.936) and AUC-PR was 0.085. Upon recalibration, the AUROC was 0.925 (0.915-0.936), and the AUC-PR was 0.094. Calibration metrics for both scores were favourable because of the large cluster of cases with low probabilities of mortality. Decision curve analyses showed limited benefit to using either score.

Conclusions: The intrinsic surgical risk score performed better than the PRAm, but both resulted in large numbers of false positives. Both scores exhibited decreased performance compared with the original studies. ASA physical status scores in sicker patients drove the superior performance of the intrinsic surgical risk score, suggesting the use of a risk score does not improve prediction.

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
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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