SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Risk prediction models for depression in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflammaging and cytokine-driven cardiovascular senescence in age-related myocardial infarction: mechanisms, biomarkers, and precision immunotherapy strategies.Biogerontology · 2026Review
- Depression and the risk of myocardial infarction: evidence from a cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2005-2020.Annals of general psychiatry · 2026Article
- Post-percutaneous coronary intervention psychological disorders predict poor adherence and cardiovascular events in elderly heart failure patients.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
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: Risk prediction models for depression in patients with coronary heart disease are increasingly being developed. However, the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice remain uncertain. Objective: To systematically evaluate depression risk prediction models in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods: Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed were searched for relevant studies from inception to September 29, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and used the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the models' risk of bias and applicability. Results: Eight studies, encompassing 13 risk prediction models and involving 8,035 CHD patients, were included, with 1,971 patients diagnosed with depression. Common predictors included age, educational level, gender, and cardiac function classification. The area under the curve (AUC) for the models ranged from 0.772 to 0.961, indicating overall good performance; however, risk of bias was high, primarily due to issues in the analysis phase, such as inadequate handling of missing values, univariate analysis for variable selection, and lack of external validation. Conclusion: Depression risk prediction models for CHD patients generally perform well, but high risk of bias and limited applicability remain concerns. Future studies should focus on developing and validating more robust models to aid healthcare professionals in early identification of high-risk patients for depression. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024625641, identifier (CRD42024625641).
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.