ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Development and validation of a scoring system to evaluate and clinically manage postoperative acute infarction complications in moyamoya disease.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. 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.
- Dual-center development and validation of a LDL-C and TC based nomogram for preoperative hemorrhagic risk in adult moyamoya disease.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRevascularization is the most widely used treatment for moyamoya disease (MMD) but is associated with relatively high incidence of ischaemic complications in adult patients. At present, the guidelines in various countries do not include effective recommendations regarding postoperative complications, and a simple, practical and reliable scoring system is needed for rapid clinical evaluation and decision-making.
methodsIn this prognostic study, we developed a prediction model based on a single-centre cohort and validated it in a multicentre external prospective cohort. All patients were followed for at least 30 days to confirm whether postoperative acute cerebral infarction occurred.
resultsAmong 2992 patients, 1980 patients are included in the derivation cohort, and 1012 patients compose the external validation cohort. Postoperative acute cerebral infarction occurs in 131 patients (6.62%) in the derivation cohort and 91 patients (8.99%) in the external validation cohort. Six risk factors are ultimately included in the development of the scoring system (CAMPIS). In the internal validation cohort, the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the concordance index (C-index) are 0.690 (0.681-0.698) and 0.956 (0.955-0.956), respectively. In the external validation cohort, the MCC and C-index are 0.762 (0.761-0.764) and 0.972 (0.971-0.973), respectively. In the derivation and validation cohorts, the postoperative infarction rates are 0.96% and 0.53%, 25.95% and 48.68%, and 84.71% and 89.47%, respectively, in the low-risk group, the medium-risk group, and the high-risk group.
conclusionsCAMPIS is a reliable and practical tool that can be used to facilitate decision-making and avoid potentially harmful interventions, serving as an effective complement to the existing guidelines in the assessment and control of postoperative ischaemic complications.
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.