Xuan Wu, Jing Kong, Zihan Sun, Ge Qiu, Zhengxiang Dai
{"title":"ICU患者肺部感染风险预测模型的系统分析与批判性评价","authors":"Xuan Wu, Jing Kong, Zihan Sun, Ge Qiu, Zhengxiang Dai","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/4826609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Purpose:</b> To systematically review and evaluate predictive models for assessing the risk of lung infection in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, covering literature published up to March 2, 2024. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for data synthesis, and data extraction was performed according to the CHARMS checklist. The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> Fourteen studies encompassing 20 predictive models were included. The area under the curve (AUC) values of these models ranged from 0.722 to 0.936. Although the models demonstrated good applicability, the risk of bias in the included studies was high. Common predictors across the models included age, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, use of antimicrobial drugs or glucocorticoids, invasive procedures, and assisted ventilation.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Current predictive models for lung infection risk in ICU patients exhibit strong predictive performance. However, the high risk of bias highlights the need for further improvement. The main sources of bias include the neglect of handling missing data in the research, use of univariate analysis to select candidate predictors, lack of assessment of model performance, and failure to address overfitting. Future studies should expand the sample size based on the characteristics of the data and specific problems, conduct prospective studies, flexibly apply traditional regression models and machine learning, effectively combine the two, and give full play to their advantages in developing prediction models with better predictive performance and more convenient operation.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/4826609","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of Predictive Models for Lung Infection Risk in ICU Patients\",\"authors\":\"Xuan Wu, Jing Kong, Zihan Sun, Ge Qiu, Zhengxiang Dai\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/ijcp/4826609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><b>Purpose:</b> To systematically review and evaluate predictive models for assessing the risk of lung infection in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.</p>\\n <p><b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, covering literature published up to March 2, 2024. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for data synthesis, and data extraction was performed according to the CHARMS checklist. The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies.</p>\\n <p><b>Results:</b> Fourteen studies encompassing 20 predictive models were included. The area under the curve (AUC) values of these models ranged from 0.722 to 0.936. Although the models demonstrated good applicability, the risk of bias in the included studies was high. Common predictors across the models included age, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, use of antimicrobial drugs or glucocorticoids, invasive procedures, and assisted ventilation.</p>\\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Current predictive models for lung infection risk in ICU patients exhibit strong predictive performance. However, the high risk of bias highlights the need for further improvement. The main sources of bias include the neglect of handling missing data in the research, use of univariate analysis to select candidate predictors, lack of assessment of model performance, and failure to address overfitting. Future studies should expand the sample size based on the characteristics of the data and specific problems, conduct prospective studies, flexibly apply traditional regression models and machine learning, effectively combine the two, and give full play to their advantages in developing prediction models with better predictive performance and more convenient operation.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\"2025 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/4826609\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/4826609\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/4826609","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:系统回顾和评价重症监护病房(ICU)患者肺部感染风险的预测模型。方法:综合计算机检索CNKI、万方、维普、中国医学信息网、PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library等数据库,检索截止到2024年3月2日发表的文献。按照PRISMA指南进行数据合成,并根据CHARMS检查表进行数据提取。PROBAST工具用于评估纳入研究的偏倚风险和适用性。结果:共纳入14项研究,包括20个预测模型。这些模型的曲线下面积(AUC)值在0.722 ~ 0.936之间。虽然模型表现出良好的适用性,但纳入研究的偏倚风险很高。模型中常见的预测因素包括年龄、住院时间、机械通气、使用抗菌药物或糖皮质激素、侵入性手术和辅助通气。结论:现有的预测模型对ICU患者肺部感染风险具有较强的预测能力。然而,高偏倚风险突出了进一步改进的必要性。偏差的主要来源包括忽视处理研究中的缺失数据,使用单变量分析来选择候选预测因子,缺乏对模型性能的评估,以及未能解决过拟合问题。未来的研究应根据数据特点和具体问题扩大样本量,进行前瞻性研究,灵活运用传统回归模型和机器学习,将两者有效结合,充分发挥各自优势,开发预测性能更好、操作更方便的预测模型。
Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of Predictive Models for Lung Infection Risk in ICU Patients
Purpose: To systematically review and evaluate predictive models for assessing the risk of lung infection in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
Methods: A comprehensive computerized search was conducted across multiple databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, covering literature published up to March 2, 2024. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for data synthesis, and data extraction was performed according to the CHARMS checklist. The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies.
Results: Fourteen studies encompassing 20 predictive models were included. The area under the curve (AUC) values of these models ranged from 0.722 to 0.936. Although the models demonstrated good applicability, the risk of bias in the included studies was high. Common predictors across the models included age, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, use of antimicrobial drugs or glucocorticoids, invasive procedures, and assisted ventilation.
Conclusion: Current predictive models for lung infection risk in ICU patients exhibit strong predictive performance. However, the high risk of bias highlights the need for further improvement. The main sources of bias include the neglect of handling missing data in the research, use of univariate analysis to select candidate predictors, lack of assessment of model performance, and failure to address overfitting. Future studies should expand the sample size based on the characteristics of the data and specific problems, conduct prospective studies, flexibly apply traditional regression models and machine learning, effectively combine the two, and give full play to their advantages in developing prediction models with better predictive performance and more convenient operation.
期刊介绍:
IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal.
IJCP publishes:
Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed]
Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
International scope
IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.