ArticleBurns & trauma2024
Developing a calculable risk prediction model for sternal wound infection after median sternotomy: a retrospective study.
Article in Burns & trauma, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosing sternal wound infection (SWI) following median sternotomy remains laborious and troublesome, resulting in high mortality rates and great harm to patients. Early intervention and prevention are critical and challenging. This study aimed to develop a simple risk prediction model to identify high-risk populations of SWI and to guide examination programs and intervention strategies. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data obtained from 6715 patients who underwent median sternotomy between January 2016 and December 2020. The least absolute shrink and selection operator (LASSO) regression method selected the optimal subset of predictors, and multivariate logistic regression helped screen the significant factors. The nomogram model was built based on all significant factors. Area under the curve (AUC), calibration curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the model's performance. Results: LASSO regression analysis selected an optimal subset containing nine predictors that were all statistically significant in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Independent risk factors of SWI included female [odds ratio (OR) = 3.405, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.535-4.573], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 4.679, 95% CI = 2.916-7.508), drinking (OR = 2.025, 95% CI = 1.437-2.855), smoking (OR = 7.059, 95% CI = 5.034-9.898), re-operation (OR = 3.235, 95% CI = 1.087-9.623), heart failure (OR = 1.555, 95% CI = 1.200-2.016) and repeated endotracheal intubation (OR = 1.975, 95% CI = 1.405-2.774). Protective factors included bone wax (OR = 0.674, 95% CI = 0.538-0.843) and chest physiotherapy (OR = 0.446, 95% CI = 0.248-0.802). The AUC of the nomogram was 0.770 (95% CI = 0.745-0.795) with relatively good sensitivity (0.798) and accuracy (0.620), exhibiting moderately good discernment. The model also showed an excellent fitting degree on the calibration curve. Finally, the DCA presented a remarkable net benefit. Conclusions: A visual and convenient nomogram-based risk calculator built on disease-associated predictors might help clinicians with the early identification of high-risk patients of SWI and timely intervention.
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.