ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
Development and validation of risk prediction model for adverse outcomes in trauma patients.
Article in Annals of medicine, 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.
- Nomogram-based model to predict prognosis in anisometropic amblyopia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis of trauma patients is highly dependent on early medical diagnosis. By constructing a nomogram model, the risk of adverse outcomes can be displayed intuitively and individually, which has important clinical implications for medical diagnosis.
objectiveTo develop and evaluate models for predicting patients with adverse outcomes of trauma that can be used in different data availability settings in China.
methodsThis was a retrospective prognostic study using data from 8 public tertiary hospitals in China from 2018. The data were randomly divided into a development set and a validation set. Simple, improved and extended models predicting adverse outcomes were developed, with adverse outcomes defined as in-hospital death or ICU transfer, and patient clinical characteristics, vital signs, diagnoses, and laboratory test values as predictors. The results of the models were presented in the form of nomograms, and performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), precision-recall (PR) curves (PR-AUC), Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsOur final dataset consisted of 18,629 patients (40.2% female, mean age of 52.3), 1,089 (5.85%) of whom resulted in adverse outcomes. In the external validation set, three models achieved ROC-AUC of 0.872, 0.881, and 0.903, and a PR-AUC of 0.339, 0.337, and 0.403, respectively. In terms of the calibration curves and DCA, the models also performed well.
conclusionsThis prognostic study found that three prediction models and nomograms including the patient clinical characteristics, vital signs, diagnoses, and laboratory test values can support clinicians in more accurately identifying patients who are at risk of adverse outcomes in different settings based on data availability.
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.