SynthesisThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2025
Prognostic Models in Patients with Dengue: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving early prediction for adverse dengue outcomes using data from the IDAMS prospective multicentre study.Nature communications · 2026Observational
- A multicenter prospective observational multi-omics study protocol to identify biomarkers for severe dengue: COMBAT study clinical protocol.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
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
There is uncertainty regarding the usefulness of predictive models for dengue prognosis. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate prognostic models in patients with dengue. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud (LILACS) up to May 24, 2023. We included case-control and cohort studies that developed or validated multivariable prognostic models related to severity, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or mortality in patients of any age with a laboratory-based diagnosis of dengue. A narrative synthesis of the performance measures of the prognostic models evaluated in each study was performed. Of the 4,211 articles, a total of 35 studies reporting information on 43 prognostic models were included. Among these, 35 were developmental and 8 were for external validation. Most models were designed to predict severity (n = 30), followed by mortality (n = 10), hospitalization (n = 2), and ICU admission (n = 1). The reported C-statistic in the models ranged from 0.70 to 0.95 for severity, 0.83 to 0.99 for mortality, 0.87 for hospitalization, and 0.92 for ICU admission. Calibration measures were poorly reported in the vast majority of models. According to the Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, the risk of bias was considered high for all included models, and applicability was of low concern for most models. Our study identified multiple prognostic models, particularly for predicting severity and mortality in patients with dengue. Although most models demonstrated acceptable discriminative ability, calibration measures were poorly reported, and the overall methodological design was poor.
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.