Evidence Hub

Prediction model, risk factor score and ventilator-associated pneumonia: A two-stage case-control study

Hua Meng, Yuxin Shi, Kaming Xue, Di Liu, Xiongjin Cao, Yan-Yan Wu, Yunzhou Fan, Fang Gao et al.

Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi, 2024

363 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most important hospital acquired infections in patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit, but the effective and robust predictable tools for VAP prevention were relatively lacked.

METHODS

This study aimed to establish a weighted risk scoring system to examine VAP risk among a two-stage VAP case-control study, and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of risk factor score (RFS) for VAP. We constructed a prediction model by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) models in 363 patients and 363 controls, and weighted RFS was calculated based on significant predictors. Finally, the diagnostic performance of the RFS was testified and further validated in another 177 pairs of VAP case-control study.

RESULTS

LASSO, RF and XGBoost consistently revealed significant associations of length of stay before MV, MV time, surgery, tracheotomy, multiple drug resistant organism infection, C-reactive protein, PaO2, and APACHE II score with VAP. RFS was significantly linearly associated with VAP risk [odds ratio and 95 % confidence interval = 2.699 (2.347, 3.135)], and showed good discriminations for VAP both in discovery stage [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.857] and validation stage (AUC = 0.879).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study revealed co-occurrence of multiple predictors for VAP risk. The risk factor scoring system…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 363 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