ArticlePloS one2023
Risk prediction models for mortality and readmission in patients with acute heart failure: A protocol for systematic review, critical appraisal, and meta-analysis.
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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA considerable number of risk models, which predict outcomes in mortality and readmission rates, have been developed for patients with acute heart failure (AHF) to help stratify patients by risk level, improve decision making, and save medical resources. However, some models exist in a clinically useful manner such as risk scores or online calculators, while others are not, providing only limited information that prevents clinicians and patients from using them. The reported performance of some models varied greatly when predicting at multiple time points and being validated in different cohorts, which causes model users uncertainty about the predictive accuracy of these models. The foregoing leads to users facing difficulties in the selection of prediction models, and even sometimes being reluctant to utilize models. Therefore, a systematic review to assess the performance at multiple time points, applicability, and clinical impact of extant prediction models for mortality and readmission in AHF patients is essential. It may facilitate the selection of models for clinical implementation. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Four databases will be searched from their inception onwards. Multivariable prognostic models for mortality and/or readmission in AHF patients will be eligible for review. Characteristics and the clinical impact of included models will be summarized qualitatively and quantitatively, and models with clinical utility will be compared with those without. Predictive performance measures of included models with an analogous clinical outcome appraised repeatedly, will be compared and synthesized by a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of validation studies for a common prediction model at the same time point will also be performed. We will also provide an overview of critical appraisal of the risk of bias, applicability, and reporting transparency of included studies using the PROBAST tool and TRIPOD statement. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021256416.
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.