Abstract
Objective To systematically evaluate risk prediction models for pneumonia occurrence during hospitalization in stroke patients.
Methods Computer searches were conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO databases for literature related to risk prediction models for pneumonia in hospitalized stroke patients, with search dates ranging from database inception to June 13, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies via the Prediction Model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).
Results A total of 43 studies were included, among which 33 studies developed a total of 56 new models, and 25 studies externally validated 19 models. Among the 56 new models, 29 used a logistic regression model (LR), 25 used a machine learning model (ML), 1 used a classification and regression tree model (CART), and 1 used a linear regression model. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.565 to 0.960. The number of predictors explicitly reported for one model was 1,046, with the top three predictors most commonly used being age, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and dysphagia. The PROBAST results revealed that all 43 studies had a high risk of bias, and 27 studies had poor applicability.
Conclusion Although the pneumonia risk prediction models for hospitalized stroke patients in the included studies achieved good predictive performance, the overall quality needs improvement. Future research should follow stricter study designs, standardized reporting practices, and multicenter large-sample external validation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study is a systematic review and does not involve ethics.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
