Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/46922
Type
ArticleCopyright
Open access
Collections
- INI - Artigos de Periódicos [3398]
Metadata
Show full item record
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PREDICTION MODELS FOR PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTS
Author
Affilliation
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Epidemiology. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Epidemiology. Nashville, Tennessee, USA / Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Biostatistics. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Epidemiology. Nashville, Tennessee, USA / Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Biostatistics. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases. Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review and critically evaluate prediction models developed to predict tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes among adults with pulmonary TB.
Design: Systematic review.
Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 1 January 1995 to 9 January 2020.
Study selection and data extraction: Studies that developed a model to predict pulmonary TB treatment outcomes were included. Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Study quality was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Data were synthesised with narrative review and in tables and figures.
Results: 14 739 articles were identified, 536 underwent full-text review and 33 studies presenting 37 prediction models were included. Model outcomes included death (n=16, 43%), treatment failure (n=6, 16%), default (n=6, 16%) or a composite outcome (n=9, 25%). Most models (n=30, 81%) measured discrimination (median c-statistic=0.75; IQR: 0.68-0.84), and 17 (46%) reported calibration, often the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (n=13). Nineteen (51%) models were internally validated, and six (16%) were externally validated. Eighteen (54%) studies mentioned missing data, and of those, half (n=9) used complete case analysis. The most common predictors included age, sex, extrapulmonary TB, body mass index, chest X-ray results, previous TB and HIV. Risk of bias varied across studies, but all studies had high risk of bias in their analysis.
Conclusions: TB outcome prediction models are heterogeneous with disparate outcome definitions, predictors and methodology. We do not recommend applying any in clinical settings without external validation, and encourage future researchers adhere to guidelines for developing and reporting of prediction models.
Share