Corrigendum: Development and validation of a prognostic model for predicting 30-day mortality risk in medical patients in emergency department (ED).

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Functional Bioink and 3D Bioprinting Tissue Scaffold Applications for Spinal Cord Injury.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026
   Review
2. Exploring the potential of bacterial-derived EVs for targeted enzyme replacement therapy: mechanisms, applications, and future directions.Archives of microbiology · 2025
   Review
3. Multivariable Technique for the Evaluation of the Trans-stenotic Pressure Gradient.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023
   Article
4. AI-enhanced simultaneous multiparametricEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Development and validation of a prognostic model for predicting 30-day mortality risk in medical patients in emergency department (ED).2017

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract