Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37689364›Full record

SynthesisJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024

Prognostic models for clinical outcomes in patients with venous leg ulcers: A systematic review.

Vladica M Veličković, Tom Macmillan, Jan Kottner, Amy Crompton, Isobel Munro, Abby Paine, Jelena Savović, Tim Spelman, Michael Clark, Harm Jaap Smit and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

13 authors.

Vladica M VeličkovićHealth Economics and Outcome Research (HEOR) Department, Hartmann Group, Heidenheim, Germany; Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT, Hall, Tirol, Austria. Electronic address: vladica.velickovic@hartmann.info.
Tom MacmillanSource Health Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Jan KottnerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Amy CromptonSource Health Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Isobel MunroSource Health Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Abby PaineSource Health Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Jelena SavovićBristol Population Health Science Institute, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Tim SpelmanBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael ClarkWelsh Wound Innovation Centre, Ynysmaerdy, Pontyclun, United Kingdom.
Harm Jaap SmitWoundcare Erasmus University, Erasmus, the Netherlands.
Hans SmolaHealth Economics and Outcome Research (HEOR) Department, Hartmann Group, Heidenheim, Germany; Department of Dermatology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Neil WebbSource Health Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Ewout SteyerbergLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this review was to identify prognostic models for clinical application in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs).

methodsLiterature searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases from inception to December 22, 2021. Eligible studies reported prognostic models aimed at developing, validating, and adjusting multivariable prognostic models that include multiple prognostic factors combined, and that predicted clinical outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the CHARMS checklist and PROBAST short form questionnaire.

resultsThirteen studies were identified, of which three were validation studies of previously published models, four reported derivation and validation of models, and the remainder reported derivation models only. There was substantial heterogeneity in the model characteristics, including 11 studies focused on wound healing outcomes reporting 91 different predictors. Three studies shared similar predicted outcomes, follow-up timepoint and used a Cox proportional hazards model. However, these models reported different predictor selection methods and different predictors and it was therefore not feasible to summarize performance, such as discriminative ability.

conclusionsThere are no standout risk prediction models in the literature with promising clinical application for patients with VLUs. Future research should focus on developing and validating high-performing models in wider VLU populations.

Indexed as

Varicose UlcerHumansPrognosisWound HealingPrognostic modelRisk predictionVLUWound

Identifiers

PMID37689364
PMCPMC11523447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.