Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome (Jun 2024)

Prediction models for amputation after diabetic foot: systematic review and critical appraisal

  • Jingying Huang,
  • Jin Yang,
  • Haiou Qi,
  • Miaomiao Xu,
  • Xin Xu,
  • Yiting Zhu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01360-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 1
pp. 1 – 16

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Numerous studies have developed or validated prediction models aimed at estimating the likelihood of amputation in diabetic foot (DF) patients. However, the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice and future research remain uncertain. This study conducts a systematic review and assessment of the risk of bias and applicability of amputation prediction models among individuals with DF. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Weipu (VIP) from their inception to December 24, 2023. Two investigators independently screened the literature and extracted data using the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was employed to evaluate both the risk of bias and applicability. Results A total of 20 studies were included in this analysis, comprising 17 development studies and three validation studies, encompassing 20 prediction models and 11 classification systems. The incidence of amputation in patients with DF ranged from 5.9 to 58.5%. Machine learning-based methods were employed in more than half of the studies. The reported area under the curve (AUC) varied from 0.560 to 0.939. Independent predictors consistently identified by multivariate models included age, gender, HbA1c, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes duration, and Wagner’s Classification. All studies were found to exhibit a high risk of bias, primarily attributed to inadequate handling of outcome events and missing data, lack of model performance assessment, and overfitting. Conclusions The assessment using PROBAST revealed a notable risk of bias in the existing prediction models for amputation in patients with DF. It is imperative for future studies to concentrate on enhancing the robustness of current prediction models or constructing new models with stringent methodologies.

Keywords