scholarly journals Risk Prediction Models for Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients: Opus in Progressu

Nephron ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 140 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier A. Neyra ◽  
David E. Leaf
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. S233-S234
Author(s):  
K. Trongtrakul MD ◽  
J. Patumanond ◽  
A. Tasanarong ◽  
B. Satirapoj ◽  
T. Charernboon ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e046274
Author(s):  
Danqiong Wang ◽  
Weiwen Zhang ◽  
Jian Luo ◽  
Honglong Fang ◽  
Shanshan Jing ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Mårtensson ◽  
Niklas Jonsson ◽  
Neil J. Glassford ◽  
Max Bell ◽  
Claes-Roland Martling ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0248899
Author(s):  
Paulien Van Acker ◽  
Wim Van Biesen ◽  
Evi V. Nagler ◽  
Muguet Koobasi ◽  
Nic Veys ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document