Risk prediction model for postoperative pneumonia in esophageal cancer patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have developed or validated prediction models to estimate the likelihood of postoperative pneumonia (POP) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. The quality of these models and the evaluation of their applicability to clinical practice and future research remains unknown. This study systematically evaluated the risk of bias and applicability of risk prediction models for developing POP in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), WanFang Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched from inception to March 12, 2024. Two investigators independently screened the literature and extracted data. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was employed to evaluate both the risk of bias and applicability.

RESULT

A total of 14 studies involving 23 models were included. These studies were mainly published between 2014 and 2023. The applicability of all studies was good. However, all studies exhibited a high risk of bias, primarily attributed to inappropriate data sources, insufficient sample size, irrational treatment of variables and missing data, and lack of model validation. The incidence of POP in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery ranged from 14.60% to 39.26%. The most frequently used predictors were smoking, age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD), diabetes mellitus, and methods of thoracotomy. Inter-model discrimination ranged from 0.627 to 0.850, sensitivity ranged between 60.7% and 84.0%, and specificity ranged from 59.1% to 83.9%.

CONCLUSION

In all included studies, good discrimination was reported for risk prediction models for POP in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery, indicating stable model performance. However, according to the PROBAST checklist, all studies had a high risk of bias. Future studies should use the predictive model assessment tool to improve study design and develop new models with larger samples and multicenter external validation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42024527085.