Skip to main content
Log in

Developing Risk Prediction Models for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: a Systematic Review of Methodology and Reporting Quality

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Postoperative pancreatic fistula is still a major complication after pancreatic surgery, despite improvements of surgical technique and perioperative management. We sought to systematically review and critically access the conduct and reporting of methods used to develop risk prediction models for predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify articles published before January 1, 2015, which described the development of models to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula. We extracted information of developing a prediction model including study design, sample size and number of events, definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula, risk predictor selection, missing data, model-building strategies, and model performance. Seven studies of developing seven risk prediction models were included. In three studies (42 %), the number of events per variable was less than 10. The number of candidate risk predictors ranged from 9 to 32. Five studies (71 %) reported using univariate screening, which was not recommended in building a multivariate model, to reduce the number of risk predictors. Six risk prediction models (86 %) were developed by categorizing all continuous risk predictors. The treatment and handling of missing data were not mentioned in all studies. We found use of inappropriate methods that could endanger the development of model, including univariate pre-screening of variables, categorization of continuous risk predictors, and model validation. The use of inappropriate methods affects the reliability and the accuracy of the probability estimates of predicting postoperative pancreatic fistula.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pratt WB, Maithel SK, Vanounou T, Huang ZS, Callery MP, Vollmer CM Jr (2007) Clinical and economic validation of the international study group of pancreatic fistula (ISGPF) classification scheme. Ann Surg 245(3):443–451

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Reid-Lombardo KM, Farnell MB, Crippa S, Barnett M, Maupin G, Bassi C et al (2007) Pancreatic anastomotic leakage after pancreaticoduodenectomy in 1,507 patients: a report from the pancreatic anastomotic leak study group. J Gastrointest Surg 11(11):1451–1458, discussion 59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138(1):8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchler MW, Friess H, Wagner M, Kulli C, Wagener V, Z’Graggen K (2000) Pancreatic fistula after pancreatic head resection. Br J Surg 87(7):883–889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wellner U, Makowiec F, Fischer E, Hopt UT, Keck T (2009) Reduced postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy. J Gastrointest Surg 13(4):745–751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrone CR, Warshaw AL, Rattner DW, Berger D, Zheng H, Rawal B et al (2008) Pancreatic fistula rates after 462 distal pancreatectomies: staplers do not decrease fistula rates. J Gastrointest Surg 12(10):1691–1697, Discussion 97–8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Goh BK, Tan YM, Chung YF, Cheow PC, Ong HS, Chan WH et al (2008) Critical appraisal of 232 consecutive distal pancreatectomies with emphasis on risk factors, outcome, and management of the postoperative pancreatic fistula: a 21-year experience at a single institution. Arch Surg 143(10):956–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamamoto Y, Sakamoto Y, Nara S, Esaki M, Shimada K, Kosuge T (2011) A preoperative predictive scoring system for postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg 35(12):2747–2755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hubbard TJ, Lawson-McLean A, Fearon KC (2011) Nutritional predictors of postoperative outcome in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 98:268–274, Br J Surg 2011;98(7):1032; author reply 32–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gaujoux S, Cortes A, Couvelard A, Noullet S, Clavel L, Rebours V et al (2010) Fatty pancreas and increased body mass index are risk factors of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 148(1):15–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Braga M, Capretti G, Pecorelli N, Balzano G, Doglioni C, Ariotti R et al (2011) A prognostic score to predict major complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 254(5):702–707, Discussion 07–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Belyaev O, Munding J, Herzog T, Suelberg D, Tannapfel A, Schmidt WE et al (2011) Histomorphological features of the pancreatic remnant as independent risk factors for postoperative pancreatic fistula: a matched-pairs analysis. Pancreatology 11(5):516–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wellner UF, Kayser G, Lapshyn H, Sick O, Makowiec F, Hoppner J et al (2010) A simple scoring system based on clinical factors related to pancreatic texture predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula preoperatively. HPB Oxford 12(10):696–702

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Konstadoulakis MM, Filippakis GM, Lagoudianakis E, Antonakis PT, Dervenis C, Bramis J (2005) Intra-arterial bolus octreotide administration during Whipple procedure in patients with fragile pancreas: a novel technique for safer pancreaticojejunostomy. J Surg Oncol 89(4):268–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alghamdi AA, Jawas AM, Hart RS (2007) Use of octreotide for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg 50(6):459–466

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SE, Jang JY, Lim CS, Kang MJ, Kim SH, Kim MA et al (2010) Measurement of pancreatic fat by magnetic resonance imaging: predicting the occurrence of pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 251(5):932–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kawai M, Tani M, Hirono S, Ina S, Miyazawa M, Yamaue H (2009) How do we predict the clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy?--an analysis in 244 consecutive patients. World J Surg 33(12):2670–2678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49(12):1373–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Babyak MA (2004) What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med 66(3):411–421

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 338:b605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mallett S, Royston P, Dutton S, Waters R, Altman DG (2010) Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med 8:20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W (2006) Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med 25(1):127–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Counsell C, Dennis M (2001) Systematic review of prognostic models in patients with acute stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis 12(3):159–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacob M, Lewsey JD, Sharpin C, Gimson A, Rela M, van der Meulen JH (2005) Systematic review and validation of prognostic models in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 11(7):814–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hukkelhoven CW, Rampen AJ, Maas AI, Farace E, Habbema JD, Marmarou A et al (2006) Some prognostic models for traumatic brain injury were not valid. J Clin Epidemiol 59(2):132–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mushkudiani NA, Hukkelhoven CW, Hernandez AV, Murray GD, Choi SC, Maas AI et al (2008) A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):331–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lagakos SW (1988) Effects of mismodelling and mismeasuring explanatory variables on tests of their association with a response variable. Stat Med 7(1–2):257–274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Collins GS, Mallett S, Omar O, Yu LM (2011) Developing risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of methodology and reporting. BMC Med 9:103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15(4):361–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marshall A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL (2010) Comparison of techniques for handling missing covariate data within prognostic modelling studies: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG (2010) Development and validation of a prediction model with missing predictor data: a practical approach. J Clin Epidemiol 63(2):205–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sun GW, Shook TL, Kay GL (1996) Inappropriate use of bivariable analysis to screen risk factors for use in multivariable analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49(8):907–916

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Austin PC, Tu JV (2004) Automated variable selection methods for logistic regression produced unstable models for predicting acute myocardial infarction mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 57(11):1138–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Harrell FE Jr, Habbema JD (2000) Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. Stat Med 19(8):1059–1079

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD (2001) Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 54(8):774–781

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Altman DG, Royston P (2000) What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 19(4):453–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, Donders AR, Derksen-Lubsen G, Grobbee DE et al (2003) External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 56(9):826–832

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reilly BM, Evans AT (2006) Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med 144(3):201–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81560387).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minhao Peng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Zhang Wen and Ya Guo contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wen, Z., Guo, Y., Xu, B. et al. Developing Risk Prediction Models for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: a Systematic Review of Methodology and Reporting Quality. Indian J Surg 78, 136–143 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-015-1439-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-015-1439-9

Keywords

Navigation