Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated all prediction models for sarcopenia in Maintenance Hemodialysis (MHD) patients.
Methods: This study used the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) for systematic review.
Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and Medline databases up to September 2023.
Data Analysis: Risk of bias (ROB) was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Random effect models were calculated due to high heterogeneity identified.
Results: Fifteen models from twelve studies were analyzed. All studies had high ROB and three of them posed a high risk in terms of applicability. The pooled AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.715, 0.583 and 0.656 respectively. The diagnostic criteria (P=0.0046), country (P=0.0046), and study design (P=0.0087) were significant sources of the heterogeneity. Analysing purely from the data perspective, grouping by diagnostic criterias, the AUC and specificity [(0.773, 95% CI 0.12-0.99, (0.652, 95% CI 0.641-0.664)] of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) group was lower than the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) group [(0.859, 95% CI 0.12-1.00), (0.874, 95% CI 0.803-0.926)]. Grouping by styles of research, the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity in development group [(0.890, 95% CI 0.16-1.00), (0.751, 95% CI 0.697-0.800), (0.875, 95% CI 0.854-0.895)] were all higher than validation group [(0.715, 95% CI 0.09-0.98), (0.550, 95% CI 0.524-0.576), (0.617, 95% CI 0.604-0.629)].
Conclusions: Moving forward, there is a critical need to create low-ROB, high-applicability, and more accurate sarcopenia prediction models for MHD patients, customized for diverse global populations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jrn.2024.07.005 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!