ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2024
Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Prediction Models for Readmission in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: Assessing Current Efficacy and Future Directions.
Review in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Ulcer to Amputation: A Systematic Review of Prognostic Models for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Amputation.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Coronary artery disease (CAD) patients frequently face readmissions due to suboptimal disease management. Prediction models are pivotal for detecting early unplanned readmissions. This review offers a unified assessment, aiming to lay the groundwork for enhancing prediction models and informing prevention strategies. Methods: A search through five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure) up to September 2023 identified studies on prediction models for coronary artery disease patient readmissions for this review. Two independent reviewers used the CHARMS checklist for data extraction and the PROBAST tool for bias assessment. Results: From 12,457 records, 15 studies were selected, contributing 30 models targeting various CAD patient groups (AMI, CABG, ACS) from primarily China, the USA, and Canada. Models utilized varied methods such as logistic regression and machine learning, with performance predominantly measured by the c-index. Key predictors included age, gender, and hospital stay duration. Readmission rates in the studies varied from 4.8% to 45.1%. Despite high bias risk across models, several showed notable accuracy and calibration. Conclusion: The study highlights the need for thorough external validation and the use of the PROBAST tool to reduce bias in models predicting readmission for CAD patients.
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.