ArticlePloS one2016
Validation and Recalibration of Two Multivariable Prognostic Models for Survival and Independence in Acute Stroke.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation and Recalibration of PCE, China-PAR, and PREVENT Models for Estimating ASCVD Risk in China.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- A study protocol for a predictive model to assess population‑based risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: The Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes Population Risk Tool (PregPoRT).Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- Dynamic updating of clinical survival prediction models in a changing environment.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Article
- Development and External Validation of a Model Predicting New-Onset Chronic Uveitis at Different Disease Durations in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Advanced cardiovascular risk prediction in the emergency department: updating a clinical prediction model - a large database study protocol.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2021Article
- A parsimonious score with a free web tool for predicting disability after an ischemic stroke: the Parsifal Score.Journal of neurology · 2020Article
- The Nomogram Model Predicting Overall Survival and Guiding Clinical Decision in Patients With Glioblastoma Based on the SEER Database.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Is length of time in a stroke unit associated with better outcomes for patients with stroke in Australia? An observational study.BMJ open · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVarious prognostic models have been developed for acute stroke, including one based on age and five binary variables ('six simple variables' model; SSVMod) and one based on age plus scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSSMod). The aims of this study were to externally validate and recalibrate these models, and to compare their predictive ability in relation to both survival and independence.
methodsData from a large clinical trial of oxygen therapy (n = 8003) were used to determine the discrimination and calibration of the models, using C-statistics, calibration plots, and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. Methods of recalibration in the large and logistic recalibration were used to update the models.
resultsFor discrimination, both models functioned better for survival (C-statistics between .802 and .837) than for independence (C-statistics between .725 and .735). Both models showed slight shortcomings with regard to calibration, over-predicting survival and under-predicting independence; the NIHSSMod performed slightly better than the SSVMod. For the most part, there were only minor differences between ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes. Logistic recalibration successfully updated the models for a clinical trial population.
conclusionsBoth prognostic models performed well overall in a clinical trial population. The choice between them is probably better based on clinical and practical considerations than on statistical considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.