SynthesisBMJ open2021
Prognostic factors and prediction models for acute aortic dissection: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nomogram for in-hospital mortality in the intensive care unit: development and validation with a type B aortic dissection cohort.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning-based in-hospital mortality predictive models for acute aortic syndrome in emergency departments.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Integrated biomarker model based on cTnI, BNP, and D-dimer for early risk stratification in acute aortic dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Integrated bioinformatic analysis of immune infiltration and disulfidptosis related gene subgroups in type A aortic dissection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Short- and Long-term survival prediction in patients with acute type A aortic dissection undergoing open surgery.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Correlation analysis of gamma-glutamyl transferase to lymphocyte ratio and patients with acute aortic syndrome in China: a propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Analysis of serum calcium change trajectories and prognostic factors in patients with acute type A aortic dissection.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Association of troponin I and macrophages in cardiac tamponade with Stanford type A aortic dissection.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Article
- Admission D-dimer to lymphocyte counts ratio as a novel biomarker for predicting the in-hospital mortality in patients with acute aortic dissection.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- TG/HDL-C ratio predicts in-hospital mortality in patients with acute type A aortic dissection.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- Preliminary evaluation of the Chinese version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in patients with aortic dissection.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Early Prediction Model of Acute Aortic Syndrome Mortality in Emergency Departments.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur study aimed to systematically review the methodological characteristics of studies that identified prognostic factors or developed or validated models for predicting mortalities among patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD), which would inform future work. DESIGN/
settingA methodological review of published studies.
methodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to June 2020 for studies about prognostic factors or prediction models on mortality among patients with AAD. Two reviewers independently collected the information about methodological characteristics. We also documented the information about the performance of the prognostic factors or prediction models.
resultsThirty-two studies were included, of which 18 evaluated the performance of prognostic factors, and 14 developed or validated prediction models. Of the 32 studies, 23 (72%) were single-centre studies, 22 (69%) used data from electronic medical records, 19 (59%) chose retrospective cohort study design, 26 (81%) did not report missing predictor data and 5 (16%) that reported missing predictor data used complete-case analysis. Among the 14 prediction model studies, only 3 (21%) had the event per variable over 20, and only 5 (36%) reported both discrimination and calibration statistics. Among model development studies, 3 (27%) did not report statistical methods, 3 (27%) exclusively used statistical significance threshold for selecting predictors and 7 (64%) did not report the methods for handling continuous predictors. Most prediction models were considered at high risk of bias. The performance of prognostic factors showed varying discrimination (AUC 0.58 to 0.95), and the performance of prediction models also varied substantially (AUC 0.49 to 0.91). Only six studies reported calibration statistic.
conclusionsThe methods used for prognostic studies on mortality among patients with AAD-including prediction models or prognostic factor studies-were suboptimal, and the model performance highly varied. Substantial efforts are warranted to improve the use of the methods in this population.
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.