4.5 Article

Blood transfusion risk prediction in spinal tuberculosis surgery: development and assessment of a novel predictive nomogram

Journal

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05132-z

Keywords

Transfusion; Spinal tuberculosis; Nomogram; Surgery

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81860393]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A predictive nomogram model with high accuracy, clinical validity, and reliability was established to predict blood transfusion risk in spinal tuberculosis surgery.
Objective The present study attempted to predict blood transfusion risk in spinal tuberculosis surgery by using a novel predictive nomogram. Methods The study was conducted on the clinical data of 495 patients (167 patients in the transfusion group and 328 patients in the non-transfusion group) who underwent spinal tuberculosis surgery in our hospital from June 2012 to June 2021. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to screen out statistically significant parameters, which were included to establish a novel predictive nomogram model. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curves, C-index, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the model. Finally, the nomogram was further assessed through internal validation. Results The C-index of the nomogram was 0.787 (95% confidence interval: 74.6%-.82.8%). The C-value calculated by internal validation was 0.763. The area under the curve (AUC) of the predictive nomogram was 0.785, and the DCA was 0.01-0.79. Conclusion A nomogram with high accuracy, clinical validity, and reliability was established to predict blood transfusion risk in spinal tuberculosis surgery. Surgeons must prepare preoperative surgical strategies and ensure adequate availability of blood before surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available