SynthesisBMC palliative care2025
Prognostic models for survival predictions in advanced cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- End-of-life prognostic models in advanced cancer: a scoping review of model development, validation, and impact.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of the Objective Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Index for Short-Term Mortality in Terminal Cancer Patients Receiving Best Supportive Care: A Prospective Observational Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of the aggregate index of systemic inflammation in palliative care patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A predictive model for treatment efficacy in RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer: development and external validation for EGFR inhibitor plus anti-angiogenic therapy based on a retrospective cohort.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Cancer-specific survival patterns in patients with bone metastasis: a registry-based analysis of 13,742 patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Performance of clinical judgment and prognostic scales for survival prediction in palliative care: A prospective cohort study.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Development and validation of simplified prognostic models for 14- and 30-day mortality in advanced cancer: beyond the glasgow prognostic score.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostication of survival among patients with advanced cancer is essential for palliative care (PC) planning. The implementation of a clinical point-of-care prognostic model may inform clinicians and facilitate decision-making. While early PC referral yields better clinical outcomes, actual referral time differs by clinical contexts and accessible. To summarize the various prognostic models that may cater to these needs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL Ultimate, and Scopus to identify eligible studies focusing on incurable solid tumors, validation of prognostic models, and measurement of predictive performances. Model characteristics and performances were summarized in tables. Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was adopted for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis of individual models, where appropriate, was performed by pooling C-index.
results35 studies covering 35 types of prognostic models were included. Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), and Objective Prognostic Score (OPS) were most frequently identified models. The pooled C-statistic of PPI for 30-day survival prediction was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62-0.73, n = 6). The pooled C-statistic of PaP for 30-day survival prediction was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.80, n = 11), while that for 21-day survival prediction was 0.80 (0.71-0.86, n = 4). The pooled C-statistic of OPS for 30-days survival prediction was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.72, n = 3). All included studies had high risk of bias.
conclusionPaP appears to perform better but further validation and implementation studies were needed for confirmation.
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.