肾移植术后移植肾功能延迟恢复预测模型的系统评价

Systematic review of predictive models for delayed graft function after kidney transplantation

  • 摘要:
    目的 系统评价肾移植术后移植物功能延迟恢复(DGF)预测模型的研究。
    方法 检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方数据库、维普数据库、PubMed、Web of Science及CINAHL等数据库,收集建库至2025年6月29日发表的有关肾移植术后DGF预测模型的研究。2位研究者根据纳入和排除标准筛选文献,使用PROBAST偏倚风险工具对文献进行质量评价,使用R软件对模型的共同预测因子进行meta分析。
    结果 共纳入12篇文献,包括14个模型,样本量103~24 653例。供者血清肌酐水平、冷缺血时间、供者年龄、供者体质量指数是排名前4位的常见预测因子。预测模型偏倚风险均为高风险,适用性均为低。meta分析结果显示供者体质量指数异常、供者年龄较大、冷缺血时间延长、供者血清肌酐水平升高与移植后DGF风险增加相关(均为P<0.01),但各研究异质性较大。采用固定效应模型与随机效应模型分别重新合并效应量,结果显示,供者体质量指数、供者年龄、冷缺血时间的固定效应模型与随机效应模型一致性较好,供者血清肌酐水平的固定效应模型与随机效应模型效应量差异较大。
    结论 移植术后DGF风险预测模型预测性能较好,但总体偏倚风险高。未来应开展大样本、多中心、高质量的前瞻性临床研究,优化预测模型,以提高预测能力和临床应用价值。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To systematically review the studies on predictive models for delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantation.
    Methods Databases including China Biology Medicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched to collect studies on predictive models for DGF after kidney transplantation published from the establishment of each database to June 29, 2025. Two researchers screened the literatures according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of the literatures using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and conducted a meta-analysis of the common predictors of the models using R software.
    Results A total of 12 literatures were included, involving 14 predictive models with sample sizes ranging from 103 to 24 653 cases. Donor serum creatinine level, cold ischemia time, donor age and donor body mass index were the top four common predictors. All the predictive models were at high risk of bias and low in applicability. The results of meta-analysis showed that abnormal donor body mass index, advanced donor age, prolonged cold ischemia time and elevated donor serum creatinine level were all associated with an increased risk of DGF after transplantation (all P<0.01), but there was high heterogeneity among the studies. Fixed-effect model and random-effect model were used to re-pool the effect sizes separately. The results indicated that the fixed-effect model and random-effect model had good consistency in terms of donor BMI, donor age and cold ischemia time, while there was a significant difference in the effect sizes of the two models for donor serum creatinine level.
    Conclusions The predictive models for DGF risk after kidney transplantation have good predictive performance, but the overall risk of bias is high. In the future, large-sample, multicenter and high-quality prospective clinical studies should be carried out to optimize the predictive models, so as to improve their predictive ability and clinical application value.

     

/

返回文章
返回