Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37719759›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2023

Prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lei Liu, Chun-Yu He, Jia-Xin Yang, Si-Ting Zheng, Jun Zhou, Ye Kong, Wen-Bo Chen, Yan Xie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Risk Factors Analysis and Prediction Model for Malignant Cerebral Edema Following Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusive Stroke.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    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

8 authors.

Lei LiuSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Chun-Yu HeSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Jia-Xin YangSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Si-Ting ZhengSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Jun ZhouSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ye KongSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Wen-Bo ChenSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yan XieSchool of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. This analysis aims to equip clinicians with evidence-based guidance for the selection of appropriate prediction models, thereby facilitating the early identification of patients at risk of developing brain edema post-surgery. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and Vip, aiming to identify studies on prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in AIS patients up to January 2023. Reference lists of relevant articles were also inspected. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and extracted data. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines were employed to assess study bias and literature quality, respectively. We then used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis models to summarize the studies. Results: The review included five articles, yielding 10 models. These models exhibited a relatively high risk of bias. Random effects model demonstrated that the AUC was 0.858 (95% CI 0.817-0.899). Conclusion: Despite the promising discriminative ability shown by studies on prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in AIS patients, concerns related to a high risk of bias and limited external validation remain. Future research should prioritize the external validation and optimization of these models. There is an urgent need for large-scale, multicenter studies to develop robust, user-friendly models for real-world clinical application. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk, unique Identifier: CRD42022382790.

Indexed as

acute ischemic strokebrain edemaprediction modelsystematic reviewthrombectomy

Identifiers

PMID37719759
PMCPMC10501604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.