Ramspek Chava L, Voskamp Pauline Wm, van Ittersum Frans J, Krediet Raymond T, Dekker Friedo W, van Diepen Merel
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden.
Department of Nephrology, VU University Medical Center.
Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep 5;9:451-464. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S139748. eCollection 2017.
In medicine, many more prediction models have been developed than are implemented or used in clinical practice. These models cannot be recommended for clinical use before external validity is established. Though various models to predict mortality in dialysis patients have been published, very few have been validated and none are used in routine clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to identify existing models for predicting mortality in dialysis patients through a review and subsequently to externally validate these models in the same large independent patient cohort, in order to assess and compare their predictive capacities.
A systematic review was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. To account for missing data, multiple imputation was performed. The original prediction formulae were extracted from selected studies. The probability of death per model was calculated for each individual within the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD). The predictive performance of the models was assessed based on their discrimination and calibration.
In total, 16 articles were included in the systematic review. External validation was performed in 1,943 dialysis patients from NECOSAD for a total of seven models. The models performed moderately to well in terms of discrimination, with -statistics ranging from 0.710 (interquartile range 0.708-0.711) to 0.752 (interquartile range 0.750-0.753) for a time frame of 1 year. According to the calibration, most models overestimated the probability of death.
Overall, the performance of the models was poorer in the external validation than in the original population, affirming the importance of external validation. Floege et al's models showed the highest predictive performance. The present study is a step forward in the use of a prediction model as a useful tool for nephrologists, using evidence-based medicine that combines individual clinical expertise, patients' choices, and the best available external evidence.
在医学领域,已开发出的预测模型数量远多于临床实践中实际应用的模型。在确立外部有效性之前,这些模型不能被推荐用于临床。尽管已发表了多种预测透析患者死亡率的模型,但很少有模型经过验证,且没有一个模型用于常规临床实践。本研究的目的是通过综述确定现有的透析患者死亡率预测模型,随后在同一个大型独立患者队列中对这些模型进行外部验证,以评估和比较它们的预测能力。
按照系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统综述。为处理缺失数据,进行了多重填补。从选定研究中提取原始预测公式。为荷兰透析充分性合作研究(NECOSAD)中的每个个体计算每个模型的死亡概率。基于模型的区分度和校准情况评估其预测性能。
系统综述共纳入16篇文章。对NECOSAD的1943例透析患者的7个模型进行了外部验证。在区分度方面,这些模型表现中等至良好,1年时间范围内的C统计量范围为0.710(四分位间距0.708 - 0.711)至0.752(四分位间距0.750 - 0.753)。在校准方面,大多数模型高估了死亡概率。
总体而言,模型在外部验证中的表现比在原始人群中更差,这证实了外部验证的重要性。Floege等人的模型显示出最高的预测性能。本研究朝着将预测模型作为肾病学家的有用工具迈出了一步,采用了结合个体临床专业知识、患者选择和最佳可用外部证据的循证医学方法。