Scholarlink

Background <p>Patients with vertebral compression fractures may experience unpredictable residual pain following vertebral augmentation. Clinical prediction models have shown potential for early prevention and intervention of such residual pain. However, studies focusing on the quality and accuracy of these prediction models are lacking. Therefore, we systematically reviewed and critically evaluated prediction models for residual pain following vertebral augmentation.</p> Methods <p>We systematically searched eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and SinoMed) for studies that developed and/or validated risk prediction models for residual pain after vertebral augmentation. The limitations of existing models were critically assessed using the PROBAST tool. We performed a descriptive analysis of the models' characteristics and predictors. Extracted C-statistics were combined using a weighted approach based on the Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) method to represent the models' average performance. All statistical analyses were performed using R 4.3.1 and STATA 17 software.</p> Results <p>Fifteen models were evaluated, involving 4802 patients with vertebral compression fractures post-vertebral augmentation. The overall pooled C-statistic was 0.87, with a 95% CI of 0.83 to 0.89 and a prediction interval ranging from 0.72 to 0.94. The models included 35 different predictors, with posterior fascia injury (PFI), bone mineral density (BMD), and intravertebral vacuum cleft (IVC) being the most common. Most models were rated high risk due to concerns about population selection and modeling methodology, yet their clinical applicability remains promising.</p> Conclusion <p>The development and validation of current models exhibit a certain risk of bias, and our study highlights these existing flaws and limitations. Although these models demonstrate satisfactory predictive performance and clinical applicability, further external validation is needed to confirm their accuracy in clinical practice. Clinicians can utilize these models alongside relevant risk factors to predict and prevent residual pain after vertebral augmentation, or to formulate personalized treatment plans.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Predicting residual pain after vertebral augmentation in vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and critical appraisal of risk prediction models

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月27日

查看全文
  • Siyi Wang,
  • Mingpeng Shi,
  • Xue Zhou,
  • Jianan Yu,
  • Mingze Han,
  • Xianshuai Zhang,
  • Zhenhua Li,
  • Xinhua Chen

摘要

Background

Patients with vertebral compression fractures may experience unpredictable residual pain following vertebral augmentation. Clinical prediction models have shown potential for early prevention and intervention of such residual pain. However, studies focusing on the quality and accuracy of these prediction models are lacking. Therefore, we systematically reviewed and critically evaluated prediction models for residual pain following vertebral augmentation.

Methods

We systematically searched eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and SinoMed) for studies that developed and/or validated risk prediction models for residual pain after vertebral augmentation. The limitations of existing models were critically assessed using the PROBAST tool. We performed a descriptive analysis of the models' characteristics and predictors. Extracted C-statistics were combined using a weighted approach based on the Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) method to represent the models' average performance. All statistical analyses were performed using R 4.3.1 and STATA 17 software.

Results

Fifteen models were evaluated, involving 4802 patients with vertebral compression fractures post-vertebral augmentation. The overall pooled C-statistic was 0.87, with a 95% CI of 0.83 to 0.89 and a prediction interval ranging from 0.72 to 0.94. The models included 35 different predictors, with posterior fascia injury (PFI), bone mineral density (BMD), and intravertebral vacuum cleft (IVC) being the most common. Most models were rated high risk due to concerns about population selection and modeling methodology, yet their clinical applicability remains promising.

Conclusion

The development and validation of current models exhibit a certain risk of bias, and our study highlights these existing flaws and limitations. Although these models demonstrate satisfactory predictive performance and clinical applicability, further external validation is needed to confirm their accuracy in clinical practice. Clinicians can utilize these models alongside relevant risk factors to predict and prevent residual pain after vertebral augmentation, or to formulate personalized treatment plans.