Risk prediction models for graft failure in kidney transplantation: a systematic review

被引:57
|
作者
Kabore, Remi [1 ,2 ]
Haller, Maria C. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Harambat, Jerome [1 ,2 ,6 ,7 ]
Heinze, Georg [3 ]
Leffondre, Karen [1 ,2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bordeaux, Ctr INSERM, ISPED, Bordeaux Populat Hlth Res U1219, Bordeaux, France
[2] INSERM, ISPED, Ctr INSERM, Bordeaux Populat Hlth Res U1219, Bordeaux, France
[3] Med Univ Vienna, Sect Clin Biometr, Ctr Med Stat Informat & Intelligent Syst CeMSIIS, Vienna, Austria
[4] Krankenhaus Elisabethinen, Dept Nephrol & Hypertens Dis, Transplantat Med & Rheumatol, Linz, Austria
[5] Ghent Univ Hosp, Methods Support Team European Renal Best Practice, Ghent, Belgium
[6] INSERM, Clin Investigat Ctr Clin Epidemiol CIC 1401, Bordeaux, France
[7] Bordeaux Univ Hosp, Pellegrin Enfants Hosp, Pediat Nephrol Unit, Bordeaux, France
关键词
kidney graft loss; prediction model; prognosis; systematic review; transplantation; DECEASED DONOR KIDNEYS; RENAL-ALLOGRAFT SURVIVAL; TO-EVENT DATA; COMPETING RISKS; SCORING SYSTEM; UNITED-STATES; INDIVIDUAL PROGNOSIS; COMORBIDITY INDEXES; STATISTICAL-METHODS; DIAGNOSIS TRIPOD;
D O I
10.1093/ndt/gfw405
中图分类号
R3 [基础医学]; R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1001 ; 1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Risk prediction models are useful for identifying kidney recipients at high risk of graft failure, thus optimizing clinical care. Our objective was to systematically review the models that have been recently developed and validated to predict graft failure in kidney transplantation recipients. We used PubMed and Scopus to search for English, German and French language articles published in 2005-15. We selected studies that developed and validated a new risk prediction model for graft failure after kidney transplantation, or validated an existing model with or without updating the model. Data on recipient characteristics and predictors, as well as modelling and validation methods were extracted. In total, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 developed and validated a new risk prediction model and 5 validated an existing one with or without updating the model. The most frequently predicted outcome was graft failure, defined as dialysis, re-transplantation or death with functioning graft. Most studies used the Cox model. There was substantial variability in predictors used. In total, 25 studies used predictors measured at transplantation only, and 14 studies used predictors also measured after transplantation. Discrimination performance was reported in 87% of studies, while calibration was reported in 56%. Performance indicators were estimated using both internal and external validation in 13 studies, and using external validation only in 6 studies. Several prediction models for kidney graft failure in adults have been published. Our study highlights the need to better account for competing risks when applicable in such studies, and to adequately account for post-transplant measures of predictors in studies
引用
收藏
页码:68 / 76
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Dynamic prediction models for graft failure in paediatric kidney transplantation
    Kabore, Remi
    Ferrer, Loic
    Couchoud, Cecile
    Hogan, Julien
    Cochat, Pierre
    Dehoux, Laurene
    Roussey-Kesler, Gwenaelle
    Novo, Robert
    Garaix, Florentine
    Brochard, Karine
    Fila, Marc
    Parmentier, Cyrielle
    Fournier, Marie-Cecile
    Macher, Marie-Alice
    Harambat, Jerome
    Leffondre, Karen
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2021, 36 (05) : 927 - 935
  • [2] Risk Prediction Models for Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Harrison, Hannah
    Thompson, Rachel E.
    Lin, Zhiyuan
    Rossi, Sabrina H.
    Stewart, Grant D.
    Griffin, Simon J.
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (06): : 1380 - 1390
  • [3] Machine learning in predicting graft failure following kidney transplantation: A systematic review of published predictive models
    Senanayake, Sameera
    White, Nicole
    Graves, Nicholas
    Healy, Helen
    Baboolal, Keshwar
    Kularatna, Sanjeewa
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2019, 130
  • [4] The representation of multimorbidity and frailty in the development and validation of kidney failure risk prediction models - a systematic review
    Walker, Heather
    Day, Scott
    Ker, Robert
    Grant, Christopher H.
    Jones, Catrin
    Sullivan, Michael
    Jani, Bhautesh
    Gallacher, Katie
    Mark, Patrick
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2024, 39 : I2381 - I2381
  • [5] Risk Classification Models for Kidney Graft Failure
    Naik, M. G.
    Budde, K.
    Neves, D. Telmo
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2021, 21 : 452 - 452
  • [6] Risk Prediction Models for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease A Systematic Review
    Tangri, Navdeep
    Kitsios, Georgios D.
    Inker, Lesley Ann
    Griffith, John
    Naimark, David M.
    Walker, Simon
    Rigatto, Claudio
    Uhlig, Katrin
    Kent, David M.
    Levey, Andrew S.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 158 (08) : 596 - +
  • [7] Risk prediction models for survival after heart transplantation: A systematic review
    Aleksova, Natasha
    Alba, Ana C.
    Molinero, Victoria M.
    Connolly, Katherine
    Orchanian-Cheff, Ani
    Badiwala, Mitesh
    Ross, Heather J.
    Posada, Juan G. Duero
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2020, 20 (04) : 1137 - 1151
  • [8] Population Risk Prediction Models for Incident Heart Failure A Systematic Review
    Echouffo-Tcheugui, Justin B.
    Greene, Stephen J.
    Papadimitriou, Lampros
    Zannad, Faiez
    Yancy, Clyde W.
    Gheorghiade, Mihai
    Butler, Javed
    [J]. CIRCULATION-HEART FAILURE, 2015, 8 (03) : 438 - 447
  • [9] A systematic review of risk prediction models for incident heart failure in the community
    Thaitirarot, C.
    Sze, S.
    Chan, A.
    Taylor, K. S.
    Taylor, C. J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE, 2023, 25 : 241 - 241
  • [10] Clinical Prediction Models of Patient and Graft Survival in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review
    Singh, S.
    Naimark, D.
    Victor, J.
    Kim, S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 14 : 631 - 631