Suppr超能文献

胰十二指肠切除术术后胰瘘预测评分的外部验证:系统评价和荟萃分析。

External validation of postoperative pancreatic fistula prediction scores in pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

HPB (Oxford). 2022 Mar;24(3):287-298. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.10.006. Epub 2021 Nov 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Multiple risk scores claim to predict the probability of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy. It is unclear which scores have undergone external validation and are the most accurate. The aim of this study was to identify risk scores for POPF, and assess the clinical validity of these scores.

METHODS

Areas under receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROCs) were extracted from studies that performed external validation of POPF risk scores. These were pooled for each risk score, using intercept-only random-effects meta-regression models.

RESULTS

Systematic review identified 34 risk scores, of which six had been subjected to external validation, and so included in the meta-analysis, (Tokyo (N=2 validation studies), Birmingham (N=5), FRS (N=19), a-FRS (N=12), m-FRS (N=3) and ua-FRS (N=3) scores). Overall predictive accuracies were similar for all six scores, with pooled AUROCs of 0.61, 0.70, 0.71, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively. Considerably heterogeneity was observed, with I2 statistics ranging from 52.1-88.6%.

CONCLUSION

Most risk scores lack external validation; where this was performed, risk scores were found to have limited predictive accuracy. . Consensus is needed for which score to use in clinical practice. Due to the limited predictive accuracy, future studies to derive a more accurate risk score are warranted.

摘要

背景

多种风险评分声称可以预测胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘(POPF)的发生概率。目前尚不清楚哪些评分已经过外部验证,并且最为准确。本研究旨在确定预测 POPF 的风险评分,并评估这些评分的临床有效性。

方法

从对 POPF 风险评分进行外部验证的研究中提取接受者操作特征曲线(AUROC)下面积。使用截距仅随机效应荟萃回归模型,对每个风险评分进行汇总。

结果

系统评价确定了 34 种风险评分,其中 6 种已进行了外部验证,因此纳入荟萃分析(东京(N=2 项验证研究)、伯明翰(N=5)、FRS(N=19)、a-FRS(N=12)、m-FRS(N=3)和 ua-FRS(N=3)评分)。所有 6 种评分的总体预测准确性相似,AUROC 分别为 0.61、0.70、0.71、0.70、0.70 和 0.72。观察到明显的异质性,I2 统计范围为 52.1-88.6%。

结论

大多数风险评分缺乏外部验证;在进行外部验证的情况下,发现风险评分的预测准确性有限。需要达成共识,确定在临床实践中使用哪种评分。由于预测准确性有限,因此有必要进行进一步研究以开发更准确的风险评分。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验