用于预测早期药物流产失败的风险评估模型的开发和验证:基于系统回顾和荟萃分析的临床预测模型研究

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0315025
An-Hao Liu, Bin Xu, Xiu-Wen Li, Yue-Wen Yu, Hui-Xin Guan, Xiao-Lu Sun, Yan-Zhen Lin, Li-Li Zhang, Xian-Di Zhuo, Jia Li, Wen-Qun Chen, Wen-Feng Hu, Ming-Zhu Ye, Xiu-Min Huang, Xun Chen
{"title":"用于预测早期药物流产失败的风险评估模型的开发和验证:基于系统回顾和荟萃分析的临床预测模型研究","authors":"An-Hao Liu, Bin Xu, Xiu-Wen Li, Yue-Wen Yu, Hui-Xin Guan, Xiao-Lu Sun, Yan-Zhen Lin, Li-Li Zhang, Xian-Di Zhuo, Jia Li, Wen-Qun Chen, Wen-Feng Hu, Ming-Zhu Ye, Xiu-Min Huang, Xun Chen","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0315025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>As the first model in predicting the failure of early medical abortion (EMA) was inefficient, this study aims to develop and validate a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of EMAs more accurately in a clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The derivation cohort was obtained from a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. The clinically significant risk factors were identified and combined with their corresponding odds ratios to establish a risk assessment model. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings. The model's performance was evaluated by an external validation cohort obtained from a tertiary hospital. The outcome was defined as the incidence of EMA failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 126,420 patients who had undergone medical abortions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, and the pooled failure rate was 6.7%. The final risk factors consisted of gestational age, maternal age, parity, previous termination of pregnancy, marital status, type of residence, and differences between gestational age calculated using the last menstrual period and that measured via ultrasound. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings, with a maximum score of 19. The clinical prediction model exhibited a good discrimination, as validated by external verification (402 patients) with an area under the curve of 0.857 (95% confidence interval 0.804-0.910). The optimal cutoff value was determined to be 13.5 points, yielding a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 75.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study effectively establishes a simple risk assessment model including seven routinely available clinical parameters for predicting EMA failure. In preliminary validation, this model demonstrates good performance in terms of predictive efficiency, accuracy, calibration, and clinical benefit. However, more research and validation are warranted for future application.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>CRD42023485388.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0315025"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11661585/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"An-Hao Liu, Bin Xu, Xiu-Wen Li, Yue-Wen Yu, Hui-Xin Guan, Xiao-Lu Sun, Yan-Zhen Lin, Li-Li Zhang, Xian-Di Zhuo, Jia Li, Wen-Qun Chen, Wen-Feng Hu, Ming-Zhu Ye, Xiu-Min Huang, Xun Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0315025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>As the first model in predicting the failure of early medical abortion (EMA) was inefficient, this study aims to develop and validate a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of EMAs more accurately in a clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The derivation cohort was obtained from a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. The clinically significant risk factors were identified and combined with their corresponding odds ratios to establish a risk assessment model. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings. The model's performance was evaluated by an external validation cohort obtained from a tertiary hospital. The outcome was defined as the incidence of EMA failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 126,420 patients who had undergone medical abortions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, and the pooled failure rate was 6.7%. The final risk factors consisted of gestational age, maternal age, parity, previous termination of pregnancy, marital status, type of residence, and differences between gestational age calculated using the last menstrual period and that measured via ultrasound. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings, with a maximum score of 19. The clinical prediction model exhibited a good discrimination, as validated by external verification (402 patients) with an area under the curve of 0.857 (95% confidence interval 0.804-0.910). The optimal cutoff value was determined to be 13.5 points, yielding a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 75.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study effectively establishes a simple risk assessment model including seven routinely available clinical parameters for predicting EMA failure. In preliminary validation, this model demonstrates good performance in terms of predictive efficiency, accuracy, calibration, and clinical benefit. However, more research and validation are warranted for future application.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>CRD42023485388.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"19 12\",\"pages\":\"e0315025\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11661585/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:针对早期药物流产(EMA)失败预测模型效率较低的问题,本研究旨在建立并验证一种更准确地预测早期药物流产(EMA)失败的风险评估模型。方法:衍生队列通过综合系统评价和荟萃分析获得。确定具有临床意义的危险因素,并结合其对应的优势比建立风险评估模型。根据各自的权重给风险因素打分。该模型的性能是由外部验证队列从三级医院获得的评估。结果定义为EMA失败的发生率。结果:系统评价和荟萃分析共纳入126420例药物流产患者,合并失败率为6.7%。最后的危险因素包括胎龄、产妇年龄、胎次、以前终止妊娠、婚姻状况、居住类型以及用最后一次月经计算的胎龄与超声测量的胎龄之间的差异。风险因素根据其各自的权重分配得分,最高得分为19分。经外部验证(402例),临床预测模型具有较好的判别性,曲线下面积为0.857(95%置信区间0.804 ~ 0.910)。最佳临界值为13.5点,敏感性为83.3%,特异性为75.4%。结论:本研究有效地建立了一个简单的风险评估模型,包括七个常规的临床参数来预测EMA的失败。在初步验证中,该模型在预测效率、准确性、校准和临床效益方面表现良好。然而,未来的应用需要更多的研究和验证。试验注册号:CRD42023485388。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Development and validation of a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of early medical abortions: A clinical prediction model study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: As the first model in predicting the failure of early medical abortion (EMA) was inefficient, this study aims to develop and validate a risk assessment model for predicting the failure of EMAs more accurately in a clinical setting.

Methods: The derivation cohort was obtained from a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. The clinically significant risk factors were identified and combined with their corresponding odds ratios to establish a risk assessment model. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings. The model's performance was evaluated by an external validation cohort obtained from a tertiary hospital. The outcome was defined as the incidence of EMA failure.

Results: A total of 126,420 patients who had undergone medical abortions were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, and the pooled failure rate was 6.7%. The final risk factors consisted of gestational age, maternal age, parity, previous termination of pregnancy, marital status, type of residence, and differences between gestational age calculated using the last menstrual period and that measured via ultrasound. The risk factors were assigned scores based on their respective weightings, with a maximum score of 19. The clinical prediction model exhibited a good discrimination, as validated by external verification (402 patients) with an area under the curve of 0.857 (95% confidence interval 0.804-0.910). The optimal cutoff value was determined to be 13.5 points, yielding a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 75.4%.

Conclusion: This study effectively establishes a simple risk assessment model including seven routinely available clinical parameters for predicting EMA failure. In preliminary validation, this model demonstrates good performance in terms of predictive efficiency, accuracy, calibration, and clinical benefit. However, more research and validation are warranted for future application.

Trial registration number: CRD42023485388.

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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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