Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36199162›Full record

SynthesisEquine veterinary journal2023

Clinical predictive models in equine medicine: A systematic review.

Charles O Cummings, David D R Krucik, Emma Price

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Equine veterinary journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Charles O CummingsTufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-1719
David D R KrucikDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4678-2872
Emma PriceTufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9542-5172

Funding

CTSA Graduate ProgramTL1TR002546 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI KENT, DAVID M · 2018 to 2022
$4.2M
Comparative Medicine Biosciences Training ProgramT32OD011121 · OD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUCKMASTER, PAUL S. · 2012 to 2025
$3.2M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002546NCATS NIH HHS TL1TR002546NIH HHS T32 OD011121NIH HHS T32OD011121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical predictive models use a patient's baseline demographic and clinical data to make predictions about patient outcomes and have the potential to aid clinical decision making. The extent of equine clinical predictive models is unknown in the literature. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, we systematically reviewed the predictive models currently described for use in equine patients. Models were eligible for inclusion if they were published in a peer-reviewed article as a multivariable model used to predict a clinical/laboratory/imaging outcome in an individual horse or herd. The agreement of at least two authors was required for model inclusion. We summarised the patient populations, model development methods, performance metric reporting, validation efforts, and, using the Predictive model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns for these models. In addition, we summarised the index conditions for which models were developed and provided detailed information on included models. A total of 90 predictive models and 9 external validation studies were included in the final systematic review. A plurality of models (41%) was developed to predict outcomes associated with colic, for example, need for surgery or survival to discharge. All included models were at high risk of bias, defined as failing one or more PROBAST signalling questions, primarily for analysis-related reasons. Importantly, a high risk of bias does not necessarily mean that models are unusable, but that they require more careful consideration prior to clinical use. Concerns about applicability were low for the majority of models. Systematic reviews such as this can serve to increase veterinarians' awareness of predictive models, including evaluation of their performance and their use in different patient populations.

Indexed as

PrognosisAnimalsBiasHorsescolicdiagnostic modelhorsepredictionpredictive modelprognostic model

Identifiers

PMID36199162
PMCPMC10073351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.