ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Prediction Models for Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate prediction models for perioperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Given the inherent risks associated with blood transfusion and the critical need for accurate prediction, this study identified and assessed models based on their development, validation, and predictive performance. The review included five studies encompassing various surgical procedures and approaches. Predicting factors commonly used across these models included preoperative hematocrit, race, surgical route, and uterine fibroid characteristics. However, the review highlighted significant variability in the definition of perioperative periods, a lack of standardization in transfusion criteria, and a high risk of bias in most models due to methodological issues, such as a low number of events per variable, inappropriate handling of continuous and categorical predictors, inappropriate handling of missing data, improper methods of predictor selection, inappropriate measurement methods for model performance, and inadequate evaluations of model overfitting and optimism in model performance. Despite some models demonstrating good discrimination and calibration, the overall quality and external validation of these models were limited. Consequently, there is a clear need for more robust and externally validated models to improve clinical decision-making and patient outcomes in gynecologic surgery. Future research should focus on refining these models, incorporating rigorous validation, and adhering to standardized reporting practices.
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.