Systematic Review of Clinical Prediction Models for the Risk of Emergency Caesarean Births

被引:0
|
作者
Hunt, Alexandra [1 ]
Bonnett, Laura [1 ]
Heron, Jon [2 ]
Lawton, Michael [3 ]
Clayton, Gemma [2 ]
Smith, Gordon [4 ,5 ]
Norman, Jane [6 ]
Kenny, Louise [7 ]
Lawlor, Deborah [2 ]
Merriel, Abi [8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Hlth Data Sci, Liverpool, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Bristol, England
[3] Univ Bristol, Bristol Populat Hlth Sci Inst, Bristol, England
[4] Univ Cambridge, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Cambridge, England
[5] Rosie Hosp, Cambridge, England
[6] Univ Nottingham, Nottingham, England
[7] Univ Liverpool, Fac Hlth & Life Sci, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Liverpool, England
[8] Univ Liverpool, Ctr Womens Hlth Res, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Liverpool, England
[9] Liverpool Womens Hosp, Liverpool, England
关键词
emergency caesareans; maternal Health; prediction; prognostic; risk factors; SECTION; INDUCTION; DELIVERY; TOOL; APPLICABILITY; VALIDATION; PROBAST; EVENTS; WOMEN; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/1471-0528.17948
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BackgroundGlobally, caesarean births (CB), including emergency caesareans births (EmCB), are rising. It is estimated that nearly a third of all births will be CB by 2030.ObjectivesIdentify and summarise the results from studies developing and validating prognostic multivariable models predicting the risk of EmCBs. Ultimately understanding the accuracy of their development, and whether they are operationalised for use in routine clinical practice.Search StrategyStudies were identified using databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and Scopus with a search strategy tailored to models predicting EmCBs.Selection CriteriaProspective studies developing and validating clinical prediction models, with two or more covariates, to predict risk of EmCB.Data Collection and AnalysisData were extracted onto a proforma using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).ResultsIn total, 8083 studies resulted in 56 unique prediction modelling studies and seven validating studies, with a total of 121 different predictors. Frequently occurring predictors included maternal height, maternal age, parity, BMI and gestational age. PROBAST highlighted 33 studies with low overall bias, and these all internally validated their model. Thirteen studies externally validated; only eight of these were graded an overall low risk of bias. Six models offered applications that could be readily used, but only one provided enough time to offer a planned caesarean birth (pCB). These well-refined models have not been recalibrated since development. Only one model, developed in a relatively low-risk population, with data collected a decade ago, remains useful at 36 weeks for arranging a pCB.ConclusionTo improve personalised clinical conversations, there is a pressing need for a model that accurately predicts the timely risk of an EmCB for women across diverse clinical backgrounds. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023384439.ConclusionTo improve personalised clinical conversations, there is a pressing need for a model that accurately predicts the timely risk of an EmCB for women across diverse clinical backgrounds. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023384439.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RISK PREDICTION MODELS FOR OSTEOPOROSIS
    Haney, E. M.
    Chou, R.
    Bougatsos, C.
    Dana, T.
    Nelson, H. D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 24 : 175 - 175
  • [2] Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Emery, Jon
    Kassianos, Angelos P.
    Walter, Fiona M.
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2014, 23 (08) : 1450 - 1463
  • [3] RISK PREDICTION MODELS FOR MELANOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Walter, Fiona M.
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    Kassianos, Angelos
    Emery, Jon
    [J]. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 10 : 61 - 62
  • [4] Predictive models of individual risk of elective caesarean section complications: a systematic review
    Ahmeidat, Annes
    Kotts, Wiktoria Julia
    Wong, Jeremy
    McLernon, David J.
    Black, Mairead
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2021, 262 : 248 - 255
  • [5] Predictive models of individual risk of elective caesarean section complications: a systematic review
    Ahmeidat, A.
    Kotts, W. J.
    McLernon, D. J.
    Black, M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 108 : V13 - V13
  • [6] Clinical Prediction Models for Pancreatic Cancer in General and At-Risk Populations: A Systematic Review
    Santos, Ralph
    Coleman, Helen G.
    Cairnduff, Victoria
    Kunzmann, Andrew T.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 118 (01): : 26 - 40
  • [7] Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review
    Marije Lamain – de Ruiter
    Anneke Kwee
    Christiana A. Naaktgeboren
    Arie Franx
    Karel G. M. Moons
    Maria P. H. Koster
    [J]. Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, 1 (1)
  • [8] Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Readmission A Systematic Review
    Kansagara, Devan
    Englander, Honora
    Salanitro, Amanda
    Kagen, David
    Theobald, Cecelia
    Freeman, Michele
    Kripalani, Sunil
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2011, 306 (15): : 1688 - 1698
  • [9] Risk Prediction Models for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Gray, Eoin P.
    Teare, M. Dawn
    Stevens, John
    Archer, Rachel
    [J]. CLINICAL LUNG CANCER, 2016, 17 (02) : 95 - 106
  • [10] Risk prediction models for breast cancer: a systematic review
    Zheng, Yadi
    Li, Jiang
    Wu, Zheng
    Li, He
    Cao, Maomao
    Li, Ni
    He, Jie
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (07):