Back to Search Start Over

Systematic Review and Comparison of Publicly Available ICU Data Sets-A Decision Guide for Clinicians and Data Scientists.

Authors :
Sauer CM
Dam TA
Celi LA
Faltys M
de la Hoz MAA
Adhikari L
Ziesemer KA
Girbes A
Thoral PJ
Elbers P
Source :
Critical care medicine [Crit Care Med] 2022 Jun 01; Vol. 50 (6), pp. e581-e588. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Mar 02.
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Objective: As data science and artificial intelligence continue to rapidly gain traction, the publication of freely available ICU datasets has become invaluable to propel data-driven clinical research. In this guide for clinicians and researchers, we aim to: 1) systematically search and identify all publicly available adult clinical ICU datasets, 2) compare their characteristics, data quality, and richness and critically appraise their strengths and weaknesses, and 3) provide researchers with suggestions, which datasets are appropriate for answering their clinical question.<br />Data Sources: A systematic search was performed in Pubmed, ArXiv, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv.<br />Study Selection: We selected all studies that reported on publicly available adult patient-level intensive care datasets.<br />Data Extraction: A total of four publicly available, adult, critical care, patient-level databases were included (Amsterdam University Medical Center data base [AmsterdamUMCdb], eICU Collaborative Research Database eICU CRD], High time-resolution intensive care unit dataset [HiRID], and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV). Databases were compared using a priori defined categories, including demographics, patient characteristics, and data richness. The study protocol and search strategy were prospectively registered.<br />Data Synthesis: Four ICU databases fulfilled all criteria for inclusion and were queried using SQL (PostgreSQL version 12; PostgreSQL Global Development Group) and analyzed using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The number of unique patient admissions varied between 23,106 (AmsterdamUMCdb) and 200,859 (eICU-CRD). Frequency of laboratory values and vital signs was highest in HiRID, for example, 5.2 (±3.4) lactate values per day and 29.7 (±10.2) systolic blood pressure values per hour. Treatment intensity varied with vasopressor and ventilatory support in 69.0% and 83.0% of patients in AmsterdamUMCdb versus 12.0% and 21.0% in eICU-CRD, respectively. ICU mortality ranged from 5.5% in eICU-CRD to 9.9% in AmsterdamUMCdb.<br />Conclusions: We identified four publicly available adult clinical ICU datasets. Sample size, severity of illness, treatment intensity, and frequency of reported parameters differ markedly between the databases. This should guide clinicians and researchers which databases to best answer their clinical questions.<br />Competing Interests: Dr. Dam received funding from AmsterdamUMC and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (project number 10430012010003). Dr. Celi received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Faltys received funding from the Swiss National Fund. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.<br /> (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1530-0293
Volume :
50
Issue :
6
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Critical care medicine
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
35234175
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005517