ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Validation and Recalibration of a Model for Predicting Surgical-Site Infection After Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to externally validate and recalibrate a previously developed model for predicting postoperative surgical-site infection (SSI) after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery.
methodsThis study utilized a previously validated model for predicting post-POP surgery SSI within 90 days of surgery using a Medicare population. For this study, the model was externally validated and recalibrated using the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database. Discriminatory performance was assessed via the c-statistic and calibration was assessed using calibration curves. Methods of recalibration in the large and logistic recalibration were used to update the models.
resultsThe PHD contained 420,277 POP procedures meeting the inclusion criteria and 1.6% resulted in SSI. The NSQIP dataset contained 62,553 POP surgeries and 1.4% resulted in SSI. Discrimination of the original model was comparable with that seen in the initial validation (c-statistic = 0.57 in PHD, 0.59 in NSQIP vs 0.60 in the original Medicare data). Recalibration greatly improved model calibration when evaluated in NSQIP data.
conclusionA previously developed model for predicting SSI after POP surgery demonstrated stable discriminatory ability when externally validated on the PHD and NSQIP databases. Model recalibration was necessary to improve prediction. Prospective studies are needed to validate the clinical utility of such a model.
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.