ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2024
[Preoperative risk prediction models for noncardiac surgery patients : Interpret and use risk scores correctly].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 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
Risk prediction models are an established component of the preoperative evaluation. In its guidelines the European Society for Cardiology proposes several risk scores but the benefit of these is mostly unclear for clinicians. This article describes the individual steps in the preparation of a valid prediction model with a focus on the parameters, discrimination, calibration and external validation. The clinical benefits of the risk scores proposed in the guidelines with respect to these parameters was investigated. All proposed risk scores appear to show a good discrimination in the validation cohorts. Only a few reliable data for a good calibration could be compiled. The external validity of the individual models is unclear. The general benefit of the risk scores cannot be recommended as data for calibration or discrimination in external cohorts are lacking. A precise estimation of the risk cannot be expected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39576320What 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.