Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2019
Development of a prediction model for inpatient gout flares in people with comorbid gout.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jatuworapruk Kanon, Grainger Rebecca, Dalbeth Nicola, Taylor William J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Hospitalisation is a risk factor for flares in people with gout. However, the predictors of inpatient gout flare are not well understood. The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model for inpatient gout flare among people with comorbid gout.
METHODS: We used data from a retrospective cohort of hospitalised patients with comorbid gout from Wellington, Aotearoa/New Zealand, in 2017 calendar year. For the development of a prediction model, we took three approaches: (A) a clinical knowledge-driven model, (B) a statistics-driven model and (C) a decision tree model. The final model was chosen based on practicality and performance, then validated using bootstrap procedure.
RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 625 hospitalised patients with comorbid gout, 87 of whom experienced inpatient gout flare. Model A yielded 9 predictors of inpatient gout flare, while model B and C produced 15 and 5, respectively. Model A was chosen for its simplicity and superior C-statistics (0.82) and calibration slope (0.93). The final nine-item set of predictors were pre-admission urate >0.36 mmol/L, tophus, no pre-admission urate-lowering therapy (ULT), no pre-admission gout prophylaxis, acute kidney injury, surgery, initiation or increase of gout prophylaxis, adjustment of ULT and diuretics prior to flare. Bootstrap validation of the final model showed adequate C-statistics and calibration slope (0.80 and 0.78, respectively).
CONCLUSION: We propose a set of nine predictors of inpatient flare for people with comorbid gout. The predictors are simple, practical and are supported by existing clinical knowledge.
METHODS: We used data from a retrospective cohort of hospitalised patients with comorbid gout from Wellington, Aotearoa/New Zealand, in 2017 calendar year. For the development of a prediction model, we took three approaches: (A) a clinical knowledge-driven model, (B) a statistics-driven model and (C) a decision tree model. The final model was chosen based on practicality and performance, then validated using bootstrap procedure.
RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 625 hospitalised patients with comorbid gout, 87 of whom experienced inpatient gout flare. Model A yielded 9 predictors of inpatient gout flare, while model B and C produced 15 and 5, respectively. Model A was chosen for its simplicity and superior C-statistics (0.82) and calibration slope (0.93). The final nine-item set of predictors were pre-admission urate >0.36 mmol/L, tophus, no pre-admission urate-lowering therapy (ULT), no pre-admission gout prophylaxis, acute kidney injury, surgery, initiation or increase of gout prophylaxis, adjustment of ULT and diuretics prior to flare. Bootstrap validation of the final model showed adequate C-statistics and calibration slope (0.80 and 0.78, respectively).
CONCLUSION: We propose a set of nine predictors of inpatient flare for people with comorbid gout. The predictors are simple, practical and are supported by existing clinical knowledge.