ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2024
Developing and validating risk predicting models to assess venous thromboembolism risk after radical cystectomy.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) patients are at significant risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Current predictive models, such as the Caprini risk assessment (CRA) model, have limitations. This research aimed to create a novel predictive model for forecasting the risk of VTE after RC. Methods: This single-center study involved RC patients treated between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019. The individuals were divided into training and testing groups in a random manner. Multivariate and stepwise logistic regression were utilized to create two novel models. The models' performance was compared to the commonly used CRA model, employing metrics including net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. Results: A total of 272 patients were enrolled, among whom 36 were diagnosed with VTE after RC. Model A and Model B were then conducted. The area under ROC of Model A and Model B is 0.806 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.748-0.856] and 0.833 (95% CI: 0.777-0.880), respectively, which were also determined in the testing cohorts. The two new Models were superior both in classification ability and prediction ability (NRI >0, IDI >0, P<0.01). Model A and Model B had a concordance index (C-index) of 0.806 and 0.833, respectively. In decision curve analysis (DCA), the two new models provided a net benefit between 0.02 and 0.84, suggesting promising clinical utility. Conclusions: Regarding predictive accuracy, both models surpass the existing CRA model, with Model A being advantageous due to its fewer variables. This easy-to-use model enables swift risk assessment and timely intervention for high-risk groups, yielding favorable patient outcomes.
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.