Evidence Hub

A novel score for early prediction of urinary tract infection risk in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a nomogram-based retrospective cohort study

Qin-Qin Zhao, P. Feng, Jun Zhu, Yunling Wang, Xiao-Juan Zhou, Z. Xia, D. Wang, Yue-Yue He et al.

Scientific Reports, 2024

1,748 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

This study aimed to construct and externally validate a user-friendly nomogram-based scoring model for predicting the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). A retrospective real-world cohort study was conducted on 1748 consecutive hospitalized patients with AIS. Out of these patients, a total of 1132 participants were ultimately included in the final analysis, with 817 used for model construction and 315 utilized for external validation. Multivariate regression analysis was applied to develop the model. The discriminative capacity, calibration ability, and clinical effectiveness of the model were evaluated. The overall incidence of UTIs was 8.13% (92/1132), with Escherichia coli being the most prevalent causative pathogen in patients with AIS. After multivariable analysis, advanced age, female gender, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≥ 5, and use of urinary catheters were identified as independent risk factors for UTIs. A nomogram-based SUNA model was constructed using these four factors (Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.810), which showed good discrimination (AUC = 0.788), calibration, and clinical utility in the external validation cohort. Based on four simple and readily available factors, we derived and externally validated a novel and user-friendly nomogram-based scoring model (SUNA score) to predict the risk of UTIs in patients with AIS. The model has a good predictive…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,748 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free