ArticleScientific reports2024
Clinical prediction model for red cell blood transfusion in elective primary posterior lumbar spine fusion.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Overestimated the cross-match of preoperative PRC preparation for elective primary lumbar spinal fusion needs revision for cost-effectiveness. We aimed to develop a novel preoperative predictive model for appropriate PRC preparation. This clinical prediction model in a retrospective cohort was studied between January 2015 and September 2022. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess predictive variables. The logistic coefficient of each predictor generated scores to establish a predictive model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was used to evaluate the model. The predictive performance was validated using bootstrapping techniques and externally validated in 102 independent cases. Among 416 patients, 178 (43%) required transfusion. Four final predictors: preoperative hematocrit level, laminectomy level, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion level, and sacral fusion. When categorized into two risk groups, the positive predictive values for the low-risk score (≤ 4) were 18.4 (95% Cl 13.9, 23.6) and 83.9 (95% CI 77.1, 89.3) for the high-risk score (> 4). AuROC was 0.90. Internal validation (bootstrap shrinkage = 0.993) and external validation (AuROC: 0.91). A new model demonstrated exemplary performance and discrimination in predicting the appropriate preparation for PRC. This study should be corroborated by rigorous external validation in other hospitals and by prospective assessments.
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.