Mae Chester Jones, Shona Kirtley, Fema Er, Vidoushee Jogarah, Yu Qiao, Ruth Tunn, Naomi Vides, Peter J Watkinson, Marian Knight, Stephen Gerry, Gary S Collins
{"title":"产妇早期预警评分显示方法学薄弱,有很高的偏倚风险。","authors":"Mae Chester Jones, Shona Kirtley, Fema Er, Vidoushee Jogarah, Yu Qiao, Ruth Tunn, Naomi Vides, Peter J Watkinson, Marian Knight, Stephen Gerry, Gary S Collins","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review and critically appraise the methodology of developing Modified Obstetric Early Warning Scores (MOEWSs).</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Web of Science for MOEWS studies published between 01 January 2000 and 31 December 2023. Eligible studies included models predicting maternal death, ICU admission, and/or a composite of two or more maternal morbidities occurring in a hospital setting in women of any gestational age and up to one week after the end of pregnancy. Models were critically appraised using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and adherence to the Transparent Reporting of Prediction Models (TRIPOD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 studies were included: five (25%) were model development studies, five (25%) were model development and validation, and ten (50%) were validation only. Four development studies used statistical methods, and the remaining six studies used clinical consensus (i.e., expert opinion). The four data-driven model development studies did not address key statistical challenges such as repeated measures or missing data, assess the performance adequately or dataset characterises clearly. All but one study (95%) were rated at high risk of bias due to data sources, poor reporting and analysis limitations. The fifteen validation studies were poorly reported and eleven (73%) were at high risk of bias. None of the data-driven models were independently validated, a key step towards implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a lack of MOEWS developed using methods that followed recommended statistical guidelines. Substantial problems with the methodological quality of included studies both in development and validation, along with high risk of bias indicating published scores could perform poorly or be potentially harmful if used in clinical practice. Future work should address handling missing data and repeated measures and consider how a MOEWS will perform in different populations and key subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"111833"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maternal early warning scores shown to be methodologically weak and at high risk of bias.\",\"authors\":\"Mae Chester Jones, Shona Kirtley, Fema Er, Vidoushee Jogarah, Yu Qiao, Ruth Tunn, Naomi Vides, Peter J Watkinson, Marian Knight, Stephen Gerry, Gary S Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111833\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review and critically appraise the methodology of developing Modified Obstetric Early Warning Scores (MOEWSs).</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Web of Science for MOEWS studies published between 01 January 2000 and 31 December 2023. Eligible studies included models predicting maternal death, ICU admission, and/or a composite of two or more maternal morbidities occurring in a hospital setting in women of any gestational age and up to one week after the end of pregnancy. Models were critically appraised using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and adherence to the Transparent Reporting of Prediction Models (TRIPOD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 studies were included: five (25%) were model development studies, five (25%) were model development and validation, and ten (50%) were validation only. Four development studies used statistical methods, and the remaining six studies used clinical consensus (i.e., expert opinion). The four data-driven model development studies did not address key statistical challenges such as repeated measures or missing data, assess the performance adequately or dataset characterises clearly. All but one study (95%) were rated at high risk of bias due to data sources, poor reporting and analysis limitations. The fifteen validation studies were poorly reported and eleven (73%) were at high risk of bias. None of the data-driven models were independently validated, a key step towards implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a lack of MOEWS developed using methods that followed recommended statistical guidelines. Substantial problems with the methodological quality of included studies both in development and validation, along with high risk of bias indicating published scores could perform poorly or be potentially harmful if used in clinical practice. Future work should address handling missing data and repeated measures and consider how a MOEWS will perform in different populations and key subgroups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"111833\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111833\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111833","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:系统回顾和批判性评价改进产科早期预警评分(MOEWSs)的方法。研究设计和设置:我们检索了Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE和Web of Science,以获取2000年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间发表的MOEWS研究。符合条件的研究包括预测任何胎龄和妊娠结束后一周内医院环境中产妇死亡、ICU入院和/或两种或两种以上产妇发病率的综合模型。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)对模型进行严格评估,并遵守预测模型透明报告(TRIPOD)。结果:纳入20项研究:5项(25%)为模型开发研究,5项(25%)为模型开发和验证研究,10项(50%)仅为验证研究。四项发展研究采用统计方法,其余六项研究采用临床共识(即专家意见)。这四项数据驱动的模型开发研究没有解决关键的统计挑战,如重复测量或缺失数据、充分评估性能或清晰地描述数据集特征。除一项研究(95%)外,由于数据来源、报告不良和分析限制,所有研究均被评为高偏倚风险。15项验证研究报告不充分,11项(73%)存在高偏倚风险。没有一个数据驱动的模型是独立验证的,这是实现的关键一步。结论:缺乏采用遵循推荐统计指南的方法开发的MOEWS。纳入研究的方法学质量在开发和验证方面存在实质性问题,同时存在高偏倚风险,表明发表的评分在临床实践中可能表现不佳或可能有害。未来的工作应解决缺失数据和重复测量的处理问题,并考虑MOEWS在不同人群和关键亚群体中的表现。
Maternal early warning scores shown to be methodologically weak and at high risk of bias.
Objective: To systematically review and critically appraise the methodology of developing Modified Obstetric Early Warning Scores (MOEWSs).
Study design and setting: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Web of Science for MOEWS studies published between 01 January 2000 and 31 December 2023. Eligible studies included models predicting maternal death, ICU admission, and/or a composite of two or more maternal morbidities occurring in a hospital setting in women of any gestational age and up to one week after the end of pregnancy. Models were critically appraised using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and adherence to the Transparent Reporting of Prediction Models (TRIPOD).
Results: 20 studies were included: five (25%) were model development studies, five (25%) were model development and validation, and ten (50%) were validation only. Four development studies used statistical methods, and the remaining six studies used clinical consensus (i.e., expert opinion). The four data-driven model development studies did not address key statistical challenges such as repeated measures or missing data, assess the performance adequately or dataset characterises clearly. All but one study (95%) were rated at high risk of bias due to data sources, poor reporting and analysis limitations. The fifteen validation studies were poorly reported and eleven (73%) were at high risk of bias. None of the data-driven models were independently validated, a key step towards implementation.
Conclusions: There is a lack of MOEWS developed using methods that followed recommended statistical guidelines. Substantial problems with the methodological quality of included studies both in development and validation, along with high risk of bias indicating published scores could perform poorly or be potentially harmful if used in clinical practice. Future work should address handling missing data and repeated measures and consider how a MOEWS will perform in different populations and key subgroups.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.