肝切除术后肝衰竭的多变量预后模型:一项最新的系统综述。

IF 2.5 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Xiao Wang, Ming-Xiang Zhu, Jun-Feng Wang, Pan Liu, Li-Yuan Zhang, You Zhou, Xi-Xiang Lin, Ying-Dong Du, Kun-Lun He
{"title":"肝切除术后肝衰竭的多变量预后模型:一项最新的系统综述。","authors":"Xiao Wang, Ming-Xiang Zhu, Jun-Feng Wang, Pan Liu, Li-Yuan Zhang, You Zhou, Xi-Xiang Lin, Ying-Dong Du, Kun-Lun He","doi":"10.4254/wjh.v17.i4.103330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Partial hepatectomy continues to be the primary treatment approach for liver tumors, and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the most critical life-threatening complication following surgery.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To comprehensively review the PHLF prognostic models developed in recent years and objectively assess the risk of bias in these models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review followed the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Three databases were searched from November 2019 to December 2022, and references as well as cited literature in all included studies were manually screened in March 2023. Based on the defined inclusion criteria, articles on PHLF prognostic models were selected, and data from all included articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. The PROBAST was used to evaluate the quality of each included article.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of thirty-four studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Nearly all of the models (32/34, 94.1%) were developed and validated exclusively using private data sources. Predictive variables were categorized into five distinct types, with the majority of studies (32/34, 94.1%) utilizing multiple types of data. The area under the curve for the training models included ranged from 0.697 to 0.956. Analytical issues resulted in a high risk of bias across all studies included.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The validation performance of the existing models was substantially lower compared to the development models. All included studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias, primarily due to issues within the analytical domain. The progression of modeling technology, particularly in artificial intelligence modeling, necessitates the use of suitable quality assessment tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":23687,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Hepatology","volume":"17 4","pages":"103330"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12038414/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multivariable prognostic models for post-hepatectomy liver failure: An updated systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Xiao Wang, Ming-Xiang Zhu, Jun-Feng Wang, Pan Liu, Li-Yuan Zhang, You Zhou, Xi-Xiang Lin, Ying-Dong Du, Kun-Lun He\",\"doi\":\"10.4254/wjh.v17.i4.103330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Partial hepatectomy continues to be the primary treatment approach for liver tumors, and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the most critical life-threatening complication following surgery.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To comprehensively review the PHLF prognostic models developed in recent years and objectively assess the risk of bias in these models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review followed the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Three databases were searched from November 2019 to December 2022, and references as well as cited literature in all included studies were manually screened in March 2023. Based on the defined inclusion criteria, articles on PHLF prognostic models were selected, and data from all included articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. The PROBAST was used to evaluate the quality of each included article.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of thirty-four studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Nearly all of the models (32/34, 94.1%) were developed and validated exclusively using private data sources. Predictive variables were categorized into five distinct types, with the majority of studies (32/34, 94.1%) utilizing multiple types of data. The area under the curve for the training models included ranged from 0.697 to 0.956. Analytical issues resulted in a high risk of bias across all studies included.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The validation performance of the existing models was substantially lower compared to the development models. All included studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias, primarily due to issues within the analytical domain. The progression of modeling technology, particularly in artificial intelligence modeling, necessitates the use of suitable quality assessment tools.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Hepatology\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"103330\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12038414/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v17.i4.103330\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v17.i4.103330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肝部分切除术仍然是肝脏肿瘤的主要治疗方法,肝切除术后肝衰竭(PHLF)仍然是手术后最严重的危及生命的并发症。目的:全面回顾近年来发展起来的PHLF预后模型,客观评价这些模型的偏倚风险。方法:本综述遵循预测模型研究系统评价的关键评价和数据提取清单以及系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目。从2019年11月至2022年12月检索了三个数据库,并于2023年3月人工筛选了所有纳入研究的参考文献和被引文献。根据所定义的纳入标准,选择有关PHLF预后模型的文章,并由两名独立审稿人从所有纳入的文章中提取数据。PROBAST用于评估每篇纳入文章的质量。结果:共有34项研究符合入选标准并被纳入分析。几乎所有的模型(32/34,94.1%)都是专门使用私有数据源开发和验证的。预测变量被分为五种不同的类型,大多数研究(32/34,94.1%)使用了多种类型的数据。所包含的训练模型的曲线下面积范围为0.697 ~ 0.956。分析性问题导致纳入的所有研究存在较高的偏倚风险。结论:现有模型的验证性能明显低于开发模型。所有纳入的研究都被评估为具有高偏倚风险,主要是由于分析领域内的问题。建模技术的发展,特别是人工智能建模,需要使用合适的质量评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multivariable prognostic models for post-hepatectomy liver failure: An updated systematic review.

Background: Partial hepatectomy continues to be the primary treatment approach for liver tumors, and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the most critical life-threatening complication following surgery.

Aim: To comprehensively review the PHLF prognostic models developed in recent years and objectively assess the risk of bias in these models.

Methods: This review followed the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Three databases were searched from November 2019 to December 2022, and references as well as cited literature in all included studies were manually screened in March 2023. Based on the defined inclusion criteria, articles on PHLF prognostic models were selected, and data from all included articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. The PROBAST was used to evaluate the quality of each included article.

Results: A total of thirty-four studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Nearly all of the models (32/34, 94.1%) were developed and validated exclusively using private data sources. Predictive variables were categorized into five distinct types, with the majority of studies (32/34, 94.1%) utilizing multiple types of data. The area under the curve for the training models included ranged from 0.697 to 0.956. Analytical issues resulted in a high risk of bias across all studies included.

Conclusion: The validation performance of the existing models was substantially lower compared to the development models. All included studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias, primarily due to issues within the analytical domain. The progression of modeling technology, particularly in artificial intelligence modeling, necessitates the use of suitable quality assessment tools.

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
World Journal of Hepatology
World Journal of Hepatology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
172
×
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