ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Predictive model for assessing the prognosis of rhabdomyolysis patients in the intensive care unit.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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: Rhabdomyolysis (RM) frequently gives rise to diverse complications, ultimately leading to an unfavorable prognosis for patients. Consequently, there is a pressing need for early prediction of survival rates among RM patients, yet reliable and effective predictive models are currently scarce. Methods: All data utilized in this study were sourced from the MIMIC-IV database. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted on the data, and the performance of the new model was evaluated based on the Harrell's concordance index (C-index) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Furthermore, the clinical utility of the predictive model was assessed through decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: A total of 725 RM patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included in the analysis, comprising 507 patients in the training cohort and 218 patients in the testing cohort. For the development of the predictive model, 37 variables were carefully selected. Multivariable Cox regression revealed that age, phosphate max, RR mean, and SOFA score were independent predictors of survival outcomes in RM patients. In the training cohort, the AUCs of the new model for predicting 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day survival rates were 0.818 (95% CI: 0.766-0.871), 0.810 (95% CI: 0.761-0.855), and 0.819 (95% CI: 0.773-0.864), respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUCs of the new model for predicting 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day survival rates were 0.840 (95% CI: 0.772-0.900), 0.842 (95% CI: 0.780-0.899), and 0.842 (95% CI: 0.779-0.897), respectively. Conclusion: This study identified crucial demographic factors, vital signs, and laboratory parameters associated with RM patient prognosis and utilized them to develop a more accurate and convenient prognostic prediction model for assessing 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day survival rates. Implications for clinical practice: This study specifically targets patients with RM admitted to ICU and presents a novel clinical prediction model that surpasses the conventional SOFA score. By integrating specific prognostic indicators tailored to RM, the model significantly enhances prediction accuracy, thereby enabling a more targeted and effective approach to managing RM patients.
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.