Risk prediction models for diabetic nephropathy among type 2 diabetes patients in China: a systematic review and...

This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes existing risk prediction models for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) among patients with type 2 diabetes, aiming to provide references for scholars in China to develop higher-quality risk prediction models.

We searched databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies on the construction of DKD risk prediction models among type 2 diabetes patients, up until 28 December 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted and evaluated information according to a data extraction form and bias risk assessment tool for prediction model studies. The area under the curve (AUC) values of the models were meta-analyzed using STATA 14.0 software.

A total of 32 studies were included, with 31 performing internal validation and 22 reporting calibration. The incidence rate of DKD among patients with type 2 diabetes ranged from 6.0% to 62.3%. The AUC ranged from 0.713 to 0.949, indicating the prediction models have fair to excellent prediction accuracy. The overall applicability of the included studies was good; however, there was a high overall risk of bias, mainly due to the retrospective nature of most studies, unreasonable sample sizes, and studies conducted in a single center. Meta-analysis of the models yielded a combined AUC of 0.810 (95% CI: 0.780-0.840), indicating good predictive performance.

Research on DKD risk prediction models for patients with type 2 diabetes in China is still in its initial stages, with a high overall risk of bias and a lack of clinical application. Future efforts could focus on constructing high-performance, easy-to-use prediction models based on interpretable machine learning methods and applying them in clinical settings.

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, a recognized guideline for such research.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024498015.