ArticleScientific reports2022
Performance of a novel risk model for deep sternal wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Machine Learning Predictive Models for Surgical Site Infections: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A novel hydrogel dressing for surgical site infection prevention in cardiac surgery: case series.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Immunonutritional Markers and the Protective Role of Sternal Irrigation and Antibiotic-Impregnated Membranes in Sternal Wound Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Predictors of 30-Day Hospital Readmission Following CABG in a Multicenter Database: A Cross-Sectional Study.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical prediction models for deep sternal wound infections (DSWI) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery exist, although they have a poor impact in external validation studies. We developed and validated a new predictive model for 30-day DSWI after CABG (REPINF) and compared it with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons model (STS). The REPINF model was created through a multicenter cohort of adults undergoing CABG surgery (REPLICCAR II Study) database, using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression, internally and externally validated comparing discrimination, calibration in-the-large (CL), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), trained between the new model and the STS PredDeep, a validated model for DSWI after cardiac surgery. In the validation data, c-index = 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.95). Compared to the STS PredDeep, predictions improved by 6.5% (IDI). However, both STS and REPINF had limited calibration. Different populations require independent scoring systems to achieve the best predictive effect. The external validation of REPINF across multiple centers is an important quality improvement tool to generalize the model and to guide healthcare professionals in the prevention of DSWI after CABG surgery.
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.