2017 - 2023年哮喘加重风险预测模型的更新系统综述:偏倚风险和适用性

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Journal of Asthma and Allergy Pub Date : 2025-04-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JAA.S509260
Anqi Liu, Yue Zhang, Chandra Prakash Yadav, Wenjia Chen
{"title":"2017 - 2023年哮喘加重风险预测模型的更新系统综述:偏倚风险和适用性","authors":"Anqi Liu, Yue Zhang, Chandra Prakash Yadav, Wenjia Chen","doi":"10.2147/JAA.S509260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate risk prediction of exacerbations in asthma patients promotes personalized asthma management.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to provide an update and critically appraise the quality and usability of asthma exacerbation prediction models which were developed since 2017.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the Embase and PubMed databases, we performed a systematic search for studies published in English between May 2017 and August 2023, and identified peer-reviewed publications regarding the development of prognostic prediction models for the risk of asthma exacerbations in adult patients with asthma. We then applied the Prediction Risk of Bias Assessment tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 415 studies screened, 10 met eligibility criteria, comprising 41 prediction models. Among them, 7 (70%) studies used real-world data (RWD) and 3 (30%) were based on trial data to derive the models, 7 (70%) studies applied machine learning algorithms, and 2 (20%) studies included biomarkers like blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in the model. PROBAST indicated a generally high risk of bias (80%) in these models, which mainly originated from the sample selection (\"Participant\" domain, 6 studies) and statistical analysis (\"Analysis\" domain, 7 studies). Meanwhile, 5 (50%) studies were rated as having a high concern in applicability due to model complexity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the use of big health data and advanced ML, asthma risk prediction models from 2017-2023 had high risk of bias and limited practical use. Future efforts should enhance generalizability and practicality for real-world implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Asthma and Allergy","volume":"18 ","pages":"579-589"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12017270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Updated Systematic Review on Asthma Exacerbation Risk Prediction Models Between 2017 and 2023: Risk of Bias and Applicability.\",\"authors\":\"Anqi Liu, Yue Zhang, Chandra Prakash Yadav, Wenjia Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JAA.S509260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate risk prediction of exacerbations in asthma patients promotes personalized asthma management.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to provide an update and critically appraise the quality and usability of asthma exacerbation prediction models which were developed since 2017.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the Embase and PubMed databases, we performed a systematic search for studies published in English between May 2017 and August 2023, and identified peer-reviewed publications regarding the development of prognostic prediction models for the risk of asthma exacerbations in adult patients with asthma. We then applied the Prediction Risk of Bias Assessment tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 415 studies screened, 10 met eligibility criteria, comprising 41 prediction models. Among them, 7 (70%) studies used real-world data (RWD) and 3 (30%) were based on trial data to derive the models, 7 (70%) studies applied machine learning algorithms, and 2 (20%) studies included biomarkers like blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in the model. PROBAST indicated a generally high risk of bias (80%) in these models, which mainly originated from the sample selection (\\\"Participant\\\" domain, 6 studies) and statistical analysis (\\\"Analysis\\\" domain, 7 studies). Meanwhile, 5 (50%) studies were rated as having a high concern in applicability due to model complexity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the use of big health data and advanced ML, asthma risk prediction models from 2017-2023 had high risk of bias and limited practical use. Future efforts should enhance generalizability and practicality for real-world implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Asthma and Allergy\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"579-589\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12017270/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Asthma and Allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S509260\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Asthma and Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S509260","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:准确预测哮喘患者急性发作的风险有助于个性化哮喘管理。目的:本系统综述旨在更新并批判性评估自2017年以来开发的哮喘恶化预测模型的质量和可用性。方法:在Embase和PubMed数据库中,我们对2017年5月至2023年8月期间发表的英文研究进行了系统检索,并确定了同行评审的关于成年哮喘患者哮喘发作风险预后预测模型开发的出版物。然后,我们应用预测偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)来评估纳入模型的偏倚风险和适用性。结果:在筛选的415项研究中,有10项符合资格标准,包括41个预测模型。其中,7项(70%)研究使用真实世界数据(RWD), 3项(30%)研究基于试验数据推导模型,7项(70%)研究应用机器学习算法,2项(20%)研究将血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数和呼出一氧化氮分数等生物标志物纳入模型。PROBAST显示这些模型的偏倚风险普遍较高(80%),主要来自于样本选择(“参与者”领域,6项研究)和统计分析(“分析”领域,7项研究)。同时,有5项(50%)研究因模型复杂性被评为适用性高度关注。结论:尽管使用了大健康数据和先进的ML,但2017-2023年哮喘风险预测模型存在较高的偏倚风险,且实际应用有限。未来的努力应加强在现实世界实施的普遍性和实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

An Updated Systematic Review on Asthma Exacerbation Risk Prediction Models Between 2017 and 2023: Risk of Bias and Applicability.

An Updated Systematic Review on Asthma Exacerbation Risk Prediction Models Between 2017 and 2023: Risk of Bias and Applicability.

An Updated Systematic Review on Asthma Exacerbation Risk Prediction Models Between 2017 and 2023: Risk of Bias and Applicability.

An Updated Systematic Review on Asthma Exacerbation Risk Prediction Models Between 2017 and 2023: Risk of Bias and Applicability.

Background: Accurate risk prediction of exacerbations in asthma patients promotes personalized asthma management.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to provide an update and critically appraise the quality and usability of asthma exacerbation prediction models which were developed since 2017.

Methods: In the Embase and PubMed databases, we performed a systematic search for studies published in English between May 2017 and August 2023, and identified peer-reviewed publications regarding the development of prognostic prediction models for the risk of asthma exacerbations in adult patients with asthma. We then applied the Prediction Risk of Bias Assessment tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included models.

Results: Of 415 studies screened, 10 met eligibility criteria, comprising 41 prediction models. Among them, 7 (70%) studies used real-world data (RWD) and 3 (30%) were based on trial data to derive the models, 7 (70%) studies applied machine learning algorithms, and 2 (20%) studies included biomarkers like blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in the model. PROBAST indicated a generally high risk of bias (80%) in these models, which mainly originated from the sample selection ("Participant" domain, 6 studies) and statistical analysis ("Analysis" domain, 7 studies). Meanwhile, 5 (50%) studies were rated as having a high concern in applicability due to model complexity.

Conclusion: Despite the use of big health data and advanced ML, asthma risk prediction models from 2017-2023 had high risk of bias and limited practical use. Future efforts should enhance generalizability and practicality for real-world 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
Journal of Asthma and Allergy
Journal of Asthma and Allergy Medicine-Immunology and Allergy
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
185
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, reports, editorials and commentaries on the following topics: Asthma; Pulmonary physiology; Asthma related clinical health; Clinical immunology and the immunological basis of disease; Pharmacological interventions and new therapies. Although the main focus of the journal will be to publish research and clinical results in humans, preclinical, animal and in vitro studies will be published where they shed light on disease processes and potential new therapies.
×
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