• 1. Department of Nursing, the Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550025, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of Neurosurgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, P. R. China;
  • 3. Department of Nursing Quality Management, the Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, P. R. China;
PENG Min, Email: 469238409@qq.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective  To systematically review the predictive model of stroke-related pneumonia risk. Methods  The CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to collect studies on risk prediction models for stroke-associated pneumonia from inception to February 15, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data. The risk of bias and applicability of the models were assessed using PROBAST. Results  A total of 18 studies and 27 SAP risk prediction models were included. The AUC values for inclusion in the model ranged from 0.67 to 0.96, and the number of candidate predictors ranged from 4 to 25, with the most common predictors being age, NIHSS score, dysphagia, mRS score, and impaired consciousness (GCS score). Conclusion  The overall predictive performance of SAP risk prediction models is good, but their predictive performance cannot be directly compared because of the differences in study type, study population, and SAP diagnostic criteria. Moreover, 72.3% of the models are not externally validated, and most of the studies have a high risk of bias.

Citation: CAO Yi, ZENG Xi, ZHAO Xinfei, PENG Min. Risk prediction models for stroke-associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(11): 1259-1268. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202303014 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Risk prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
  • Next Article

    The prevalence of financial toxicity based on comprehensive scores for financial toxicity in Chinese cancer patients: a meta-analysis