Predictive Accuracy of Infant Clinical Sign Algorithms for Mortality in Young Infants Aged 0 to 59 Days: A Systematic

Yasir Shafiq1,2,3,4, Alastair Fung5, Sophie Driker1

  • 1Global Advancement of Infants and Mothers (AIM), Department of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

Pediatrics
|August 1, 2024
PubMed

Insights

Clinical sign algorithms can help identify young infants at risk of mortality, especially in hospitals. However, evidence certainty is low due to algorithm variety and limited external validation.

Area of Science:

  • Neonatal Health
  • Pediatric Mortality Prediction
  • Clinical Decision Support

Background:

  • Clinical sign algorithms are crucial for identifying young infants susceptible to mortality.
  • Accurate identification is essential for timely intervention and improved outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically review and synthesize evidence on the accuracy of clinical sign algorithms in predicting all-cause mortality in infants aged 0-59 days.
  • To assess the reliability and generalizability of existing algorithms.

Main Methods:

  • A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane CENTRAL).
  • Studies evaluating infant clinical sign algorithms for mortality prediction were included.
  • Cochrane methods were used for study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, with certainty of evidence determined by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Main Results:

  • Eleven studies involving 26 algorithms were analyzed. Algorithms included sign-based checklists and hospital-based regression models (weighted scores, formulas, nomogram).
  • A community-based checklist showed high sensitivity and specificity for sepsis-related deaths in India but poor external validation in Bangladesh for all-cause mortality.
  • Hospital-based prediction models demonstrated good performance with Area Under the Curve (AUC) ranging from 0.76-0.93, with one model (Score for Essential Neonatal Symptoms and Signs) achieving an AUC of 0.89 in derivation and 0.83 in external validation.

Conclusions:

  • The heterogeneity of algorithms and insufficient external validation limit the current evidence base.
  • While clinical sign algorithms show promise for identifying at-risk infants, particularly in hospital settings, the overall certainty of evidence is low.
  • Further research with robust external validation is needed to improve the reliability of these tools.
Abstract

Related Concept Videos

Actuarial Approach01:20

Actuarial Approach

The actuarial approach, a statistical method originally developed for life insurance risk assessment, is widely used to calculate survival rates in clinical and population studies. This method accounts for participants lost to follow-up or those who die from causes unrelated to the study, ensuring a more accurate representation of survival probabilities.
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
70
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot01:15

Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot

A ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) plot is a graphical tool used to assess the performance of a binary classification model by illustrating the trade-off between sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (false positive rate). By plotting sensitivity against 1 - specificity across various threshold settings, the ROC curve shows how well the model distinguishes between classes, with a curve closer to the top-left corner indicating a more accurate model. The area under the ROC curve...
112
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value01:13

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value

In healthcare diagnostics, laboratory tests play a crucial role in identifying and diagnosing a wide range of medical conditions. However, interpreting test results is not always straightforward. An abnormal test result does not always confirm the presence of a disease, just as a normal result does not guarantee its absence. To assess the reliability of these diagnostic tools, healthcare practitioners rely on two key statistical indicators: sensitivity and specificity.
Sensitivity is the...
241
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
168
Cancer Survival Analysis01:21

Cancer Survival Analysis

Cancer survival analysis focuses on quantifying and interpreting the time from a key starting point, such as diagnosis or the initiation of treatment, to a specific endpoint, such as remission or death. This analysis provides critical insights into treatment effectiveness and factors that influence patient outcomes, helping to shape clinical decisions and guide prognostic evaluations. A cornerstone of oncology research, survival analysis tackles the challenges of skewed, non-normally...
336