Prognostic models for the clinical management of malaria and its complications: a systematic review

Objective Malaria infection could result in severe disease with high mortality. Prognostic models and scores predicting severity of infection, complications and mortality could help clinicians prioritise patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the various models that have been produced to predict disease severity and mortality in patients infected with malaria. Design A systematic review. Data sources Medline, Global health and CINAHL were searched up to 4 September 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published articles on models which used at least two points (or variables) of patient data to predict disease severity; potential development of complications (including coma or cerebral malaria; shock; acidosis; severe anaemia; acute kidney injury; hypoglycaemia; respiratory failure and sepsis) and mortality in patients with malaria infection. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Results A total of 564 articles were screened and 24 articles were retained which described 27 models/scores of interests. Two of the articles described models predicting complications of malaria (severe anaemia in children and development of sepsis); 15 articles described original models predicting mortality in severe malaria; 3 articles described models predicting mortality in different contexts but adapted and validated to predict mortality in malaria; and 4 articles described models predicting severity of the disease. For the models predicting mortality, all the models had neurological dysfunction as a predictor; in children, half of the models contained hypoglycaemia and respiratory failure as a predictor meanwhile, six out of the nine models in adults had respiratory failure as a clinical predictor. Acidosis, renal failure and shock were also common predictors of mortality. Eighteen of the articles described models that could be applicable in real-life settings and all the articles had a high risk of bias due to lack of use of consistent and up-to-date methods of internal validation. Conclusion Evidence is lacking on the generalisability of most of these models due lack of external validation. Emphasis should be placed on external validation of existing models and publication of the findings of their use in clinical settings to guide clinicians on management options depending on the priorities of their patients.