Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39901248›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025

Models for predicting risk of endometrial cancer: a systematic review.

Bea Harris Forder, Anastasia Ardasheva, Karyna Atha, Hannah Nentwich, Roxanna Abhari, Christiana Kartsonaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Polymorphism of theLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. m6A modification and its clinical applications in gynaecological cancer.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bea Harris ForderMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anastasia ArdashevaMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Karyna AthaMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hannah NentwichMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roxanna AbhariMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Christiana KartsonakiClinical Trials Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield, Department of Population Health (NDPH), Big Data Institute Building , University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. christiana.kartsonaki@dph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3981-3418

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometrial cancer (EC) is the most prevalent gynaecological cancer in the UK with a rising incidence. Various models exist to predict the risk of developing EC, for different settings and prediction timeframes. This systematic review aims to provide a summary of models and assess their characteristics and performance.

methodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE and Embase (OVID) databases was used to identify risk prediction models related to EC and studies validating these models. Papers relating to predicting the risk of a future diagnosis of EC were selected for inclusion. Study characteristics, variables included in the model, methods used, and model performance, were extracted. The Prediction model Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess model quality.

resultsTwenty studies describing 19 models were included. Ten were designed for the general population and nine for high-risk populations. Three models were developed for premenopausal women and two for postmenopausal women. Logistic regression was the most used development method. Three models, all in the general population, had a low risk of bias and all models had high applicability. Most models had moderate (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.60-0.80) or high predictive ability (AUC > 0.80) with AUCs ranging from 0.56 to 0.92. Calibration was assessed for five models. Two of these, the Hippisley-Cox and Coupland QCancer models, had high predictive ability and were well calibrated; these models also received a low risk of bias rating.

conclusionsSeveral models of moderate-high predictive ability exist for predicting the risk of EC, but study quality varies, with most models at high risk of bias. External validation of well-performing models in large, diverse cohorts is needed to assess their utility. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is available on PROSPERO (CRD42022303085).

Indexed as

Early detectionEndometrial cancerRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID39901248
PMCPMC11792366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.