Objective: This study aimed to validate the Erasmus Guillain-Barré syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score in the International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study cohort, and to improve its performance and region-specificity. Methods: We examined data from the first 1,500 included patients, aged ≥6 years and not ventilated prior to study entry. Patients with a clinical variant or mild symptoms were also included. Outcome was mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Model performance was assessed regarding the discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and the calibration (observed versus predicted probability of mechanical ventilation), in the full cohort and in Europe/North America and Asia separately. We recalibrated the model to improve its performance and region-specificity. Results: In the group of 1,023 eligible patients (Europe/North America n = 842, Asia n = 104, other n = 77), 104 (10%) required mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Area under the curve values were ≥ 0.80 for all validation subgroups. Mean observed proportions of mechanical ventilation were lower than predicted risks: full cohort 10% vs. 21%, Europe/North America 9% vs. 21% and Asia 17% vs. 23%. After recalibration, predicted risks for the full cohort and Europe/North America corresponded to observed proportions. Interpretation: This prospective, international, cohort study validated the Erasmus Guillain-Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score, and showed that the model can be used in the full spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. In addition, a more accurate, region-specific version of the model was developed for patients from Europe/North America. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

International validation of the Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score

Briani C;
2022

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to validate the Erasmus Guillain-Barré syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score in the International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study cohort, and to improve its performance and region-specificity. Methods: We examined data from the first 1,500 included patients, aged ≥6 years and not ventilated prior to study entry. Patients with a clinical variant or mild symptoms were also included. Outcome was mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Model performance was assessed regarding the discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and the calibration (observed versus predicted probability of mechanical ventilation), in the full cohort and in Europe/North America and Asia separately. We recalibrated the model to improve its performance and region-specificity. Results: In the group of 1,023 eligible patients (Europe/North America n = 842, Asia n = 104, other n = 77), 104 (10%) required mechanical ventilation within the first week from study entry. Area under the curve values were ≥ 0.80 for all validation subgroups. Mean observed proportions of mechanical ventilation were lower than predicted risks: full cohort 10% vs. 21%, Europe/North America 9% vs. 21% and Asia 17% vs. 23%. After recalibration, predicted risks for the full cohort and Europe/North America corresponded to observed proportions. Interpretation: This prospective, international, cohort study validated the Erasmus Guillain-Barré Syndrome Respiratory Insufficiency Score, and showed that the model can be used in the full spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. In addition, a more accurate, region-specific version of the model was developed for patients from Europe/North America. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
2022
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3415187
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact