ArticlePloS one2023
Predicting mortality after start of long-term dialysis-International validation of one- and two-year prediction models.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMortality prediction is critical on long-term kidney replacement therapy (KRT), both for individual treatment decisions and resource planning. Many mortality prediction models already exist, but as a major shortcoming most of them have only been validated internally. This leaves reliability and usefulness of these models in other KRT populations, especially foreign, unknown. Previously two models were constructed for one- and two-year mortality prediction of Finnish patients starting long-term dialysis. These models are here internationally validated in KRT populations of the Dutch NECOSAD Study and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR).
methodsWe validated the models externally on 2051 NECOSAD patients and on two UKRR patient cohorts (5328 and 45493 patients). We performed multiple imputation for missing data, used c-statistic (AUC) to assess discrimination, and evaluated calibration by plotting average estimated probability of death against observed risk of death.
resultsBoth prediction models performed well in the NECOSAD population (AUC 0.79 for the one-year model and 0.78 for the two-year model). In the UKRR populations, performance was slightly weaker (AUCs: 0.73 and 0.74). These are to be compared to the earlier external validation in a Finnish cohort (AUCs: 0.77 and 0.74). In all tested populations, our models performed better for PD than HD patients. Level of death risk (i.e., calibration) was well estimated by the one-year model in all cohorts but was somewhat overestimated by the two-year model.
conclusionsOur prediction models showed good performance not only in the Finnish but in foreign KRT populations as well. Compared to the other existing models, the current models have equal or better performance and fewer variables, thus increasing models' usability. The models are easily accessible on the web. These results encourage implementing the models into clinical decision-making widely among European KRT populations.
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.