Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Van Acker P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8016311 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThere is limited evidence to guide follow-up after acute kidney injury (AKI). Knowledge gaps include which patients to prioritize, at what time point, and for mitigation of which outcomes. In this study, we sought to compare the net benefit of risk model-based clinical decisions following AKI.Study designExternal validation of 2 risk models of AKI outcomes: the Grampian -Aberdeen (United Kingdom) AKI readmissions model and the Alberta (Canada) kidney disease risk model of chronic kidney disease (CKD) glomerular (G) filtration rate categories 4 and 5 (CKD G4 and G5). Process mining to delineate existing care pathways.Setting & participantsValidation was based on data from adult hospital survivors of AKI from Grampian, 2011-2013.PredictorsKDIGO-based measures of AKI severity and comorbidities specified in the original models.OutcomesDeath or readmission within 90 days for all hospital survivors. Progression to new CKD G4-G5 for patients surviving at least 90 days after AKI.Analytical approachDecision curve analysis to assess the "net benefit" of use of risk models to guide clinical care compared to alternative approaches (eg, prioritizing all AKI, severe AKI, or only those without kidney recovery).Results26,575 of 105,461 hospital survivors in Grampian (mean age, 60.9 ± 19.8 [SD] years) were included for validation of the death or readmission model, and 9,382 patients (mean age, 60.9 ± 19.8 years) for the CKD G4-G5 model. Both models discriminated well (area under the curve [AUC], 0.77 and 0.86, respectively). Decision curve analysis showed greater net benefit for follow up of all AKI than only severe AKI in most cases. Both original and refitted models provided net benefit superior to any other decision strategy. In process mining of all hospital discharges, 41% of readmissions and deaths occurred among people recovering after AKI. 1,464 of 3,776 people (39%) readmitted after AKI had received no intervening monitoring.LimitationsBoth original models overstated risks, indicating a need for regular updating.ConclusionsFollow up after AKI has potential net benefit for preempting readmissions, death, and subsequent CKD progression. Decisions could be improved by using risk models and by focusing on AKI across a full spectrum of severity. The current lack of monitoring among many with poor outcomes indicates possible opportunities for implementation of decision support.

Project description:ObjectiveCritically appraise prediction models for hospital-acquired acute kidney injury (HA-AKI) in general populations.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and Web of Science until November 2016.EligibilityStudies describing development of a multivariable model for predicting HA-AKI in non-specialised adult hospital populations. Published guidance followed for data extraction reporting and appraisal.Results14?046 references were screened. Of 53 HA-AKI prediction models, 11 met inclusion criteria (general medicine and/or surgery populations, 474?478 patient episodes) and five externally validated. The most common predictors were age (n=9 models), diabetes (5), admission serum creatinine (SCr) (5), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (4), drugs (diuretics (4) and/or ACE inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (3)), bicarbonate and heart failure (4 models each). Heterogeneity was identified for outcome definition. Deficiencies in reporting included handling of predictors, missing data and sample size. Admission SCr was frequently taken to represent baseline renal function. Most models were considered at high risk of bias. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to predict HA-AKI ranged 0.71-0.80 in derivation (reported in 8/11 studies), 0.66-0.80 for internal validation studies (n=7) and 0.65-0.71 in five external validations. For calibration, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test or a calibration plot was provided in 4/11 derivations, 3/11 internal and 3/5 external validations. A minority of the models allow easy bedside calculation and potential electronic automation. No impact analysis studies were found.ConclusionsAKI prediction models may help address shortcomings in risk assessment; however, in general hospital populations, few have external validation. Similar predictors reflect an elderly demographic with chronic comorbidities. Reporting deficiencies mirrors prediction research more broadly, with handling of SCr (baseline function and use as a predictor) a concern. Future research should focus on validation, exploration of electronic linkage and impact analysis. The latter could combine a prediction model with AKI alerting to address prevention and early recognition of evolving AKI.

Project description:ContextEarly detection of kidney cancer improves survival; however, low prevalence means that population-wide screening may be inefficient. Stratification of the population into risk categories could allow for the introduction of a screening programme tailored to individuals.ObjectiveThis review will identify and compare published models that predict the risk of developing kidney cancer in the general population.Evidence acquisitionA search identified primary research reporting or validating models predicting the risk of kidney cancer in Medline and EMBASE. After screening identified studies for inclusion, we extracted data onto a standardised form. The risk models were classified using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and evaluated using the PROBAST assessment tool.Evidence synthesisThe search identified 15 281 articles. Sixty-two satisfied the inclusion criteria; performance measures were provided for 11 models. Some models predicted the risk of prevalent undiagnosed disease and others future incident disease. Six of the models had been validated, two using external populations. The most commonly included risk factors were age, smoking status, and body mass index. Most of the models had acceptable-to-good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating curve >0.7) in development and validation. Many models also had high specificity; however, several had low sensitivity. The highest performance was seen for the models using only biomarkers to detect kidney cancer; however, these were developed and validated in small case-control studies.ConclusionsWe identified a small number of risk models that could be used to stratify the population according to the risk of kidney cancer. Most exhibit reasonable discrimination, but a few have been validated externally in population-based studies.Patient summaryIn this review, we looked at mathematical models predicting the likelihood of an individual developing kidney cancer. We found several suitable models, using a range of risk factors (such as age and smoking) to predict the risk for individuals. Most of the models identified require further testing in the general population to confirm their usefulness.

Project description:Some patients will develop chronic kidney disease after a hospitalization with acute kidney injury; however, no risk-prediction tools have been developed to identify high-risk patients requiring follow-up.To derive and validate predictive models for progression of acute kidney injury to advanced chronic kidney disease.Data from 2 population-based cohorts of patients with a prehospitalization estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and who had survived hospitalization with acute kidney injury (defined by a serum creatinine increase during hospitalization > 0.3 mg/dL or > 50% of their prehospitalization baseline), were used to derive and validate multivariable prediction models. The risk models were derived from 9973 patients hospitalized in Alberta, Canada (April 2004-March 2014, with follow-up to March 2015). The risk models were externally validated with data from a cohort of 2761 patients hospitalized in Ontario, Canada (June 2004-March 2012, with follow-up to March 2013).Demographic, laboratory, and comorbidity variables measured prior to discharge.Advanced chronic kidney disease was defined by a sustained reduction in eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 for at least 3 months during the year after discharge. All participants were followed up for up to 1 year.The participants (mean [SD] age, 66 [15] years in the derivation and internal validation cohorts and 69 [11] years in the external validation cohort; 40%-43% women per cohort) had a mean (SD) baseline serum creatinine level of 1.0 (0.2) mg/dL and more than 20% had stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury. Advanced chronic kidney disease developed in 408 (2.7%) of 9973 patients in the derivation cohort and 62 (2.2%) of 2761 patients in the external validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, 6 variables were independently associated with the outcome: older age, female sex, higher baseline serum creatinine value, albuminuria, greater severity of acute kidney injury, and higher serum creatinine value at discharge. In the external validation cohort, a multivariable model including these 6 variables had a C statistic of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) and improved discrimination and reclassification compared with reduced models that included age, sex, and discharge serum creatinine value alone (integrated discrimination improvement, 2.6%; 95% CI, 1.1%-4.0%; categorical net reclassification index, 13.5%; 95% CI, 1.9%-25.1%) or included age, sex, and acute kidney injury stage alone (integrated discrimination improvement, 8.0%; 95% CI, 5.1%-11.0%; categorical net reclassification index, 79.9%; 95% CI, 60.9%-98.9%).A multivariable model using routine laboratory data was able to predict advanced chronic kidney disease following hospitalization with acute kidney injury. The utility of this model in clinical care requires further research.

Project description:IntroductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) has high morbidity and mortality in intensive care units, which can lead to chronic kidney disease, more costs and longer hospital stay. Early identification of AKI is crucial for clinical intervention. Although various risk prediction models have been developed to identify AKI, the overall predictive performance varies widely across studies. Owing to the different disease scenarios and the small number of externally validated cohorts in different prediction models, the stability and applicability of these models for AKI in critically ill patients are controversial. Moreover, there are no current risk-classification tools that are standardised for prediction of AKI in critically ill patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to map and assess prediction models for AKI in critically ill patients based on a comprehensive literature review.Methods and analysisA systematic review with meta-analysis is designed and will be conducted according to the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Three databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE from inception through October 2020 will be searched to identify all studies describing development and/or external validation of original multivariable models for predicting AKI in critically ill patients. Random-effects meta-analyses for external validation studies will be performed to estimate the performance of each model. The restricted maximum likelihood estimation and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method under a random-effects model will be applied to estimate the summary C statistic and 95% CI. 95% prediction interval integrating the heterogeneity will also be calculated to pool C-statistics to predict a possible range of C-statistics of future validation studies. Two investigators will extract data independently using the CHARMS checklist. Study quality or risk of bias will be assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient informed consent are not required because all information will be abstracted from published literatures. We plan to share our results with clinicians and publish them in a general or critical care medicine peer-reviewed journal. We also plan to present our results at critical care international conferences.Osf registration number10.17605/OSF.IO/X25AT.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been a global increase in the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), including among critically-ill surgical patients. AKI prediction score provides an opportunity for early detection of patients who are at risk of AKI; however, most of the AKI prediction scores were derived from cardiothoracic surgery. Therefore, we aimed to develop an AKI prediction score for major non-cardiothoracic surgery patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS:The data of critically-ill patients from non-cardiothoracic operations in the Thai Surgical Intensive Care Unit (THAI-SICU) study were used to develop an AKI prediction score. Independent prognostic factors from regression analysis were included as predictors in the model. The outcome of interest was AKI within 7?days after the ICU admission. The AKI diagnosis was made according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)-2012 serum creatinine criteria. Diagnostic function of the model was determined by area under the Receiver Operating Curve (AuROC). Risk scores were categorized into four risk probability levels: low (0-2.5), moderate (3.0-8.5), high (9.0-11.5), and very high (12.0-16.5) risk. Risk of AKI was presented as likelihood ratios of positive (LH+). RESULTS:A total of 3474 critically-ill surgical patients were included in the model; 333 (9.6%) developed AKI. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age, high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) non-renal score, emergency surgery, large volume of perioperative blood loss, less urine output, and sepsis were identified as independent predictors for AKI. Then AKI prediction score was created from these predictors. The summation of the score was 16.5 and had a discriminative ability for predicting AKI at AuROC?=?0.839 (95% CI 0.825-0.852). LH+ for AKI were: low risk?=?0.117 (0.063-0.200); moderate risk?=?0.927 (0.745-1.148); high risk?=?5.190 (3.881-6.910); and very high risk?=?9.892 (6.230-15.695), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The function of AKI prediction score to predict AKI among critically ill patients who underwent non-cardiothoracic surgery was good. It can aid in early recognition of critically-ill surgical patients who are at risk from ICU admission. The scores could guide decision making for aggressive strategies to prevent AKI during the perioperative period or at ICU admission. TRIAL REGISTRATION:TCTR20190408004, registered on April 4, 2019.