Dataset Information

Risk prediction models for maternal mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Pregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide therapy, and help in clinical research, no prior systematic review of this literature exploring the validity of risk prediction models for maternal mortality exists. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed risk prediction models for maternal mortality.

Methods

Search strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, from inception to May 2017. Selection criteria: Trials or observational studies evaluating risk prediction models for maternal mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data on prediction performance.

Results

Thirty-eight studies that evaluated 12 different mortality prediction models were included. Mortality varied across the studies, with an average rate 10.4%, ranging from 0 to 41.7%. The Collaborative Integrated Pregnancy High-dependency Estimate of Risk (CIPHER) model and the Maternal Severity Index had the best performance, were developed and validated from studies of obstetric population with a low risk of bias. The CIPHER applies to critically ill obstetric patients (discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.811-0.835), calibration: graphic plot [intercept-0.09, slope 0.92]). The Maternal Severity Index applies to hospitalized obstetric patients (discrimination: AUC 0.826 [0.802-0.851], calibration: standardized mortality ratio 1.02 [0.86-1.20]).

Conclusions

Despite the high heterogeneity of the study populations and the limited number of studies validating the finally eligible prediction models, the CIPHER and the Maternal Severity Index are recommended for use among critically ill and hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality improvement studies. Neither index has sufficient discrimination to be applicable for clinical decision making at the individual patient level.

SUBMITTER: Aoyama K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6279047 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in China, which represents the leading cause of mortality. Precise CVD risk identification is the fundamental prevention component. This study sought to systematically review the CVD risk prediction models derived and/or validated in the Chinese population to promote primary CVD prevention.MethodsReports were included if they derived or validated one or more CVD risk prediction models in the Chinese population. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, etc., were searched. The risk of bias was assessed with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Meta-analysis was performed in R using the package metamisc.ResultsFrom 55,183 records, 22 studies were included. Twelve studies derived 18 CVD risk prediction models, of which seven models were derived based on a multicentre cohort including more than two provinces of mainland China, and one was a model developed based on a New Zealand cohort including Chinese individuals. The number of predictors ranged from 6 to 22. The definitions of predicted outcomes showed considerable heterogeneity. Fourteen articles described 29 validations of 8 models. The Framingham model and pooled cohort equations (PCEs) are the most frequently validated foreign tools. Discrimination was acceptable and similar for men and women among models (0.60-0.83). The calibration estimates changed substantially from one population to another. Prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Risk in China (China-PAR) showed good calibration [observed/expected events ratio = 0.99, 95% PI (0.57,1.70)] and female sex [1.10, 95% PI (0.23,5.16)].ConclusionsSeveral models have been developed or validated in the Chinese population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear due to incomplete external validation and head-to-head comparison. Future research should focus on externally validating or tailoring these models to local settings.Trail registrationThis systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021277453).

Project description:ImportanceExtant data on the performance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score models in people living with HIV have not been synthesized.ObjectiveTo synthesize available data on the performance of the various CVD risk scores in people living with HIV.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase were searched from inception through January 31, 2021.Study selectionSelected studies (1) were chosen based on cohort design, (2) included adults with a diagnosis of HIV, (3) assessed CVD outcomes, and (4) had available data on a minimum of 1 CVD risk score.Data extraction and synthesisRelevant data related to study characteristics, CVD outcome, and risk prediction models were extracted in duplicate. Measures of calibration and discrimination are presented in tables and qualitatively summarized. Additionally, where possible, estimates of discrimination and calibration measures were combined and stratified by type of risk model.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of calibration and discrimination.ResultsNine unique observational studies involving 75 304 people (weighted average age, 42 years; 59 490 male individuals [79%]) living with HIV were included. In the studies reporting these data, 86% were receiving antiretroviral therapy and had a weighted average CD4+ count of 449 cells/μL. Included in the study were current smokers (50%), patients with diabetes (5%), and patients with hypertension (25%). Ten risk prediction scores (6 in the general population and 4 in the HIV-specific population) were analyzed. Most risk scores had a moderate performance in discrimination (C statistic: 0.7-0.8), without a significant difference in performance between the risk scores of the general and HIV-specific populations. One of the HIV-specific risk models (Data Collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs Cohort 2016) and 2 of the general population risk models (Framingham Risk Score [FRS] and Pooled Cohort Equation [PCE] 10 year) had the highest performance in discrimination. In general, models tended to underpredict CVD risk, except for FRS and PCE 10-year scores, which were better calibrated. There was substantial heterogeneity across the studies, with only a few studies contributing data for each risk score.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that general population and HIV-specific CVD risk models had comparable, moderate discrimination ability in people living with HIV, with a general tendency to underpredict risk. These results reinforce the current recommendations provided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines to consider HIV as a risk-enhancing factor when estimating CVD risk.

Project description:Background and aimsFew studies have meta-analyzed different prognostic models developed for older adults, especially nursing home residents. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of all published models that predicted all-cause mortality among older nursing home residents.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE from the databases' inception to January 1, 2020 to capture studies developing and/or validating a prognostic/prediction model for all-cause mortality among nursing home residents. We then carried out both qualitative and quantitative analyses evaluating these models' risks of bias and applicability.ResultsThe systematic search yielded 23,975 articles. We identified 28 indices that predicted the risk of all-cause mortality from 14 days to 39 months among older adults in nursing homes. The most used predictors were age, sex, body weight, swallowing problem, congestive heart failure, shortness of breath, body mass index, and activities of daily living. Of the 28 indices, 8 (29%) and 3 (11%) were internally and externally validated, respectively. None of the indices was validated in more than one cohort. Of the 28 indices, 22 (79%) reported the C-statistic, while only 6 (6%) reported the 95% confidence interval for the C statistic in the development cohorts. In the validation cohorts, 11 (39%) reported the C-statistic and 8 (29%) reported the 95% confidence interval. The meta-analyzed C statistic for all indices is 0.733 (95% prediction interval: 0.669-0.797). All studies/indices had high risks of bias and high concern for applicability according to PROBAST.ConclusionWe identified 28 indices for predicting all-cause mortality among older nursing home residents. The overall quality of evidence was low due to a high degree of bias and poor reporting of model performance statistics. Before any prediction model could be recommended in routine care, future research is needed to rigorously validate existing prediction models and evaluate their applicability and develop new prediction models.