Mortality Risk Models for Persons with Dementia: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Persons with dementia have higher mortality than the general population. Objective, standardized predictions of mortality risk in persons with dementia could help with planning resources for care close to the end of life.Objective
To systematically review prediction models for risk of death in persons with dementia.Methods
The Medline and PsycInfo databases were searched on November 29, 2020, for prediction models estimating the risk of death in persons with dementia. Study quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool.Results
The literature search identified 2,828 studies, of which 18 were included. These studies described 16 different prediction models with c statistics mostly ranging from 0.67 to 0.79. Five models were externally validated, of which four were applicable. There were two models that were both applicable and had reasonably low risk of bias. One model predicted risk of death at six months in persons with advanced dementia residing in a nursing home. The other predicted risk of death at three years in persons seen in primary care practice or a dementia specialty clinic, derived from a nationwide registry in Sweden but not externally validated.Conclusion
Valid, applicable models with low risk of bias were found in two settings: advanced dementia in a nursing home and outpatient practices. The outpatient model requires external validation. Better models are needed for persons with mild to moderate dementia in nursing homes, a common demographic. These models may be useful for educating persons living with dementia and care partners and directing resources for end of life care.Registration:The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO as RD4202018076.
SUBMITTER: Smith EE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8075391 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAnxiety is a common symptom for those experiencing dementia and is associated with worse outcomes. The aim of the study was to examine which anxiety tools have been validated compared with a gold standard diagnostic criterion in persons with dementia.MethodsWe completed a systematic review of the literature, which was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42016042123). Three databases were searched, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, as well as the gray literature. Abstracts and full text were searched in duplicate for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate.ResultsWe identified 9626 citations from all sources after duplicates were removed. Many excluded studies used tools for anxiety, for which no diagnostic accuracy study was identified. Four articles were included in the final synthesis. Included articles had between 32 to 101 participants with mild to moderate dementia. The gold standard criteria focused on either generalized anxiety or all anxiety subtypes. The prevalence of anxiety was between 27.7% and 63.4%. Three tools were examined, the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and the Rating Anxiety in Dementia (RAID) scale. Sensitivity varied but was the highest in the RAID at 90% and lowest in the self-rated version of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (58%).DiscussionGiven how burdensome the symptoms of anxiety are to persons with dementia, valid tools are needed to help identify symptoms. We identified three validated tools, but further validation of these and other tools are needed. Practitioners should consider the use of tools with high sensitivity such as the RAID in persons with dementia.
| S-EPMC6479642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Several models have been developed to predict the risk of mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aims to systematically identify and evaluate the performance of published risk prediction models for CAP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library in November 2011 for initial derivation and validation studies for models which predict pneumonia mortality. We aimed to present the comparative usefulness of their mortality prediction. RESULTS: We identified 20 different published risk prediction models for mortality in CAP. Four models relied on clinical variables that could be assessed in community settings, with the two validated models BTS1 and CRB-65 showing fairly similar balanced accuracy levels (0.77 and 0.72, resp.), while CRB-65 had AUROC of 0.78. Nine models required laboratory tests in addition to clinical variables, and the best performance levels amongst the validated models were those of CURB and CURB-65 (balanced accuracy 0.73 and 0.71, resp.), with CURB-65 having an AUROC of 0.79. The PSI (AUROC 0.82) was the only validated model with good discriminative ability among the four that relied on clinical, laboratorial, and radiological variables. CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence that other risk prediction models improve upon the well-established CURB-65 and PSI models.
| S-EPMC3817804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePregnancy-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.MethodsSearch 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.ResultsThirty-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]).ConclusionsDespite 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.
| S-EPMC6279047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesGuidelines advocate that patients being considered for thoracic surgery should undergo a comprehensive preoperative risk assessment. Multiple risk prediction models to estimate the risk of mortality after thoracic surgery have been developed, but their quality and performance has not been reviewed in a systematic way. The objective was to systematically review these models and critically appraise their performance.MethodsThe Cochrane Library and the MEDLINE database were searched for articles published between 1990 and 2019. Studies that developed or validated a model predicting perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery were included. Data were extracted based on the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies.ResultsA total of 31 studies describing 22 different risk prediction models were identified. There were 20 models developed specifically for thoracic surgery with two developed in other surgical specialties. A total of 57 different predictors were included across the identified models. Age, sex and pneumonectomy were the most frequently included predictors in 19, 13 and 11 models, respectively. Model performance based on either discrimination or calibration was inadequate for all externally validated models. The most recent data included in validation studies were from 2018. Risk of bias (assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) was high for all except two models.ConclusionsDespite multiple risk prediction models being developed to predict perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery, none could be described as appropriate for contemporary thoracic surgery. Contemporary validation of available models or new model development is required to ensure that appropriate estimates of operative risk are available for contemporary thoracic surgical practice.
| S-EPMC8906726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social and healthcare problems associated with dementia not only affect those who suffer from this disease, but their caregivers as well. The purpose of this study was to analyze the efficacy of mindfulness intervention on psychological variables of caregivers of persons with dementia. A search for scientific articles published from 2000 to 2019 in the PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases found a total of 282 articles. After screening with preestablished inclusion criteria, ten studies with participation of 161 caregivers remained for the meta-analysis. The results were significant in favor of mindfulness intervention for the variables studied with a standardized difference of mean of 0.71 at a 95% CI, 0.71 (0.52, 0.89); p ? 0.00001. Heterogeneity of the studies included was moderate (I2 = 40%). The main conclusion suggested by empirical evidence was that mindfulness intervention seems to be effective for the variables analyzed. However, continued in-depth study of this subject is recommended.
| S-EPMC7551694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe most used mortality risk prediction models in cardiac surgery are the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (ES) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. There is no agreement on which score should be considered more accurate nor which score should be utilized in each population subgroup. We sought to provide a thorough quantitative assessment of these 2 models.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review and captured information on discrimination, as quantified by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), and calibration, as quantified by the ratio of observed-to-expected mortality (O:E). We performed random effects meta-analysis of the performance of the individual models as well as pairwise comparisons and subgroup analysis by procedure type, time and continent.ResultsThe ES2 {AUC 0.783 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.765-0.800]; O:E 1.102 (95% CI 0.943-1.289)} and STS [AUC 0.757 (95% CI 0.727-0.785); O:E 1.111 (95% CI 0.853-1.447)] showed good overall discrimination and calibration. There was no significant difference in the discrimination of the 2 models (difference in AUC -0.016; 95% CI -0.034 to -0.002; P = 0.09). However, the calibration of ES2 showed significant geographical variations (P < 0.001) and a trend towards miscalibration with time (P=0.057). This was not seen with STS.ConclusionsES2 and STS are reliable predictors of short-term mortality following adult cardiac surgery in the populations from which they were derived. STS may have broader applications when comparing outcomes across continents as compared to ES2.RegistrationProspero (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) CRD42020220983.
| S-EPMC8557799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The predictive capability of various risk assessment models (RAMs) in evaluating the risk of mortality in burn patients is not well established. It is also unclear which RAM provides the highest discriminative ability and presents the highest clinical utility. We pooled all available studies to establish this validity and compare the predictive capability of the various RAMs.MethodsWe reviewed PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from their inception up until December 2021 for studies evaluating risk of mortality in burn patients as stratified by RAMs. Data were pooled using random-effect models and presented as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.ResultsThirty-four studies, comprising of a total of 98,610 patients, were included in our analysis. Most studies were found to have a low risk of bias and a good measure of applicability. Nine RAMs were evaluated. We discovered that the classic Baux; the revised Baux; and the Fatality by Longevity, APACHE II score, Measured Extent of burn, and Sex (FLAMES) scores presented with the highest discriminative power with there being no significant difference between the results presented by them [AUROCs (95% CI), 0.92 (0.90-0.95), 0.92 (0.90-0.93), 0.94 (0.91-0.97), respectively, with P < 0.00001 for all].ConclusionsMany RAMs exist with no consensus on the optimal model to utilize and assess risk of mortality for burn patients. This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the current RAMs' discriminative ability to predict mortality in patients with burn injuries. This meta-analysis demonstrated that RAMs designed for assessing mortality in individuals with burns have acceptable to great discriminative capacity, with the classic Baux, revised Baux, and FLAMES demonstrating superior discriminative performance in predicting death. FLAMES exhibited the highest discriminative ability among the RAMs studied.
| S-EPMC9760622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospice care was initially designed for seriously ill individuals with cancer. Thus, the model and clinicians were geared toward caring for this population. Despite the proportion of persons living with dementia (PLWD) receiving hospice care substantially increased over the past 10 years, and their longer lengths of stay, established hospice interventions for this population are scarce. No systematic review has previously evaluated those interventions that do exist. We synthesized hospice intervention studies for PLWD, their families, and hospice professionals by describing the types of interventions, participants, outcomes, and results; assessing study quality; and identifying promising intervention strategies.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search of five databases through March 2021 and follow-up hand searches. Included studies were peer-reviewed, available in English, and focused on hospice interventions for persons with dementia, and/or care partners, and clinicians. Using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data was extracted guided by the Cochrane Checklist, and quality was assessed using a 26-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Checklist.ResultsThe search identified 3235 unique studies in total, of which 10 studies met inclusion criteria. The search revealed three types of interventions: clinical education and training, usual care plus care add-on services, and "other" delivered to 707 participants (mostly clinicians). Five studies included underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Outcomes measured knowledge and skills, psychosocial and health outcomes, feasibility, and acceptability, with significant improvements in six studies. Study quality was reflective of early-stage research with clinical education and training strategies showing deliberate progression towards real-world efficacy testing.ImplicationsHospice interventions for PLWD are sparse and in early-phase research. More research is needed with rigorous designs, diverse samples, and outcomes considering the concordance of care.
| S-EPMC9283206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdherence to medication is vital for disease management while simultaneously reducing healthcare expenditure. Older persons with cognitive impairment (CI) are at risk for non-adherence as cognitive processes are needed to manage medications. This systematic review focuses on the relationship between medication non-adherence and specific cognitive domains in persons with CI, and explores determinants of medication non-adherence. When available, relationships and factors are compared with cognitively intact populations.MethodsA seven database systematic search of studies published between 1 January 1949-31 December 2015 examining medication non-adherence in community dwelling persons with CI or dementia was conducted. Articles reporting medication non-adherence in people with CI or dementia in the community, with or without caregiver supports were eligible for inclusion. Papers reporting adherence to treatments in cognitively intact populations, populations from hospital or institutional settings, for non-prescribed medication or those describing dementia as a factor predicting medication non-adherence were excluded. Data on study and population characteristics, research design, data sources and analysis, specific cognitive domains, non-adherence prevalence, measurement of adherence, salient findings, factors associated with adherence and strategies to improve medication adherence were extracted. Study limitations included inconsistencies between data sources and definitions, resulting in a loss of fidelity in the value and comprehensiveness of data, as well as exclusion of non-pharmacological treatments and regimens.FindingsFifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Adherence among CI subjects ranged from 10.7%-38% with better rates of adherence in non-CI individuals. Medication non-adherence definitions varied considerably. New-learning, memory and executive functioning were associated with improved adherence and formed the focus of most studies. Multiple factors were identified as modulators of non-adherence.ConclusionThis review highlights a gap in knowledge on how specific cognitive domains contribute to medication non-adherence amongst CI populations, and demonstrates the current focus is limited to two domains: memory and executive functioning.
| S-EPMC5293218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Life Story Book has been commonly used in promoting person-centred care in older adults, especially for persons with dementia. This involves collecting the life stories and memories of the person living with dementia and compiling them into a book or folder, which is used by staff or family to assist the person recall these memories. Evidence on the use, benefits and influences of the Life Story Book in dementia care is limited. This systematic literature review aimed to collect past reviews and provide a thorough overview of the use, benefits, and impact of the Life Story Book for the person with dementia, the relatives, family, and caregivers. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct and Web of Science as well as grey literature through Google Scholar were searched to select the relevant studies. Seven studies that meet the inclusion criteria were selected and data synthesised. Findings revealed that the use of the Life Story Book has no specific guidelines and has been described with numerous characteristics and varied implementation methods. The Life Story Book intervention is found to provide positive outcomes for the person with dementia and the carers involved. Six out of the seven studies reported that Life Story Book enhanced communication between persons with dementia, relatives, care staff, and residents. The review extends the current evidence on the usage of the Life Story Book in dementia care and confirms that the use of life stories leads to better care in various settings. However, more research is needed to reveal the potential of the Life Story Book in enhancing communication. Guidelines and training are also required to make the best use of the Life Story Book.
| S-EPMC10553343 | biostudies-literature