Risk prediction models for acute kidney injury in adults: An overview of systematic reviews

Autor: Muguet Koobasi, Nic Veys, Jill Vanmassenhove, Wim Van Biesen, Evi V. Nagler, Paulien Van Acker
Přispěvatelé: Andreucci, Michele
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
Epidemiology
Cardiovascular Procedures
Risk prediction models
Database and Informatics Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Medicine and Health Sciences
Database Searching
Multidisciplinary
Incidence
Statistics
Acute kidney injury
General Medicine
Research Assessment
Metaanalysis
Acute Kidney Injury
Hospitals
Intensive Care Units
Systematic review
Research Design
Physical Sciences
Medicine
Anatomy
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Research Article
medicine.medical_specialty
Systematic Reviews
Cardiac Surgery
Science
MEDLINE
Genetics and Molecular Biology
Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
Research and Analysis Methods
Objective assessment
parasitic diseases
medicine
Humans
Statistical Methods
Intensive care medicine
Protocol (science)
Data collection
business.industry
External validation
Biology and Life Sciences
Kidneys
Renal System
medicine.disease
Health Care
Health Care Facilities
Medical Risk Factors
General Biochemistry
business
Mathematics
Forecasting
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Zdroj: PLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 4, p e0248899 (2021)
PLoS ONE
PLOS ONE
ISSN: 1932-6203
4202-0204
Popis: Background The incidence of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) and its human and economic cost is increasing steadily. One way to reduce the burden associated with AKI is to prevent the event altogether. An important step in prevention lies in AKI risk prediction. Due to the increasing number of available risk prediction models (RPMs) clinicians need to be able to rely on systematic reviews (SRs) to provide an objective assessment on which RPM can be used in a specific setting. Our aim was to assess the quality of SRs of RPMs in AKI. Methods The protocol for this overview was registered in PROSPERO. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for SRs of RPMs of AKI in any setting from 2003 till August 2020. We used the ROBIS tool to assess the methodological quality of the retrieved SRs. Results Eight SRs were retrieved. All studies were assessed as being at high risk for bias using the ROBIS tool. Eight reviews had a high risk of bias in study eligibility criteria (domain 1), five for study identification and selection (domain 2), seven for data collection and appraisal (domain 3) and seven for synthesis and findings (domain 4). Five reviews were scored at high risk of bias across all four domains. Risk of bias assessment with a formal risk of bias tool was only performed in five reviews. Primary studies were heterogeneous and used a wide range of AKI definitions. Only 19 unique RPM were externally validated, of which 11 had only 1 external validation report. Conclusion The methodological quality of SRs of RPMs of AKI is inconsistent. Most SRs lack a formal risk of bias assessment. SRs ought to adhere to certain standard quality criteria so that clinicians can rely on them to select a RPM for use in an individual patient. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number is CRD 42020204236, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=204236.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje