Mortality prediction models in the adult critically ill: A scoping review
- PMID: 31828760
- DOI: 10.1111/aas.13527
Mortality prediction models in the adult critically ill: A scoping review
Abstract
Background: Mortality prediction models are applied in the intensive care unit (ICU) to stratify patients into different risk categories and to facilitate benchmarking. To ensure that the correct prediction models are applied for these purposes, the best performing models must be identified. As a first step, we aimed to establish a systematic review of mortality prediction models in critically ill patients.
Methods: Mortality prediction models were searched in four databases using the following criteria: developed for use in adult ICU patients in high-income countries, with mortality as primary or secondary outcome. Characteristics and performance measures of the models were summarized. Performance was presented in terms of discrimination, calibration and overall performance measures presented in the original publication.
Results: In total, 43 mortality prediction models were included in the final analysis. In all, 15 models were only internally validated (35%), 13 externally (30%) and 10 (23%) were both internally and externally validated by the original researchers. Discrimination was assessed in 42 models (98%). Commonly used calibration measures were the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (60%) and the calibration plot (28%). Calibration was not assessed in 11 models (26%). Overall performance was assessed in the Brier score (19%) and the Nagelkerke's R2 (4.7%).
Conclusions: Mortality prediction models have varying methodology, and validation and performance of individual models differ. External validation by the original researchers is often lacking and head-to-head comparisons are urgently needed to identify the best performing mortality prediction models for guiding clinical care and research in different settings and populations.
Keywords: critical care; intensive care unit; mortality prediction model; performance; risk prediction; scoping review.
© 2019 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Moons KGM, Wolff RF, Riley RD, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and ElaborationPROBAST: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:1-33.
-
- Lemeshow S, Le J-R. Modeling the severity of illness of ICU patients: a systems update. JAMA. 1994;272:1049-1055.
-
- Vincent J-L, Moreno R. Clinical review: scoring systems in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2010;14:207, https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8204
-
- Bouch C, Thompson J. Severity scoring systems in the critically ill. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2008;8:181-185.
-
- Strand K, Flaatten H. Severity scoring in the ICU: a review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:467-478 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01586.x
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials