Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40473567›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2025

Prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhiyu Huang, Yang Han, Huijia Zhuang, Jingyao Jiang, Cheng Zhou, Hai Yu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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.

Zhiyu HuangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yang HanDepartment of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Huijia ZhuangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Jingyao JiangLaboratory of Anaesthesia & Critical Care Medicine, National-Local Joint Engineering Research Centre of Translational Medicine of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Cheng ZhouLaboratory of Anaesthesia & Critical Care Medicine, National-Local Joint Engineering Research Centre of Translational Medicine of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Electronic address: zhouc@163.com.
Hai YuDepartment of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Electronic address: yuhai@scu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase mortality, hospital stays, and healthcare costs. Multivariable prediction models can guide patient care by identifying high-risk patients. The discriminative ability and potential for clinical impact of PPC prediction models remains unclear.

methodsWe systematically searched Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed (up to June 2024) for studies developing or validating prediction models for PPCs that reported c-statistic. The primary outcome was the c-statistic of prediction models for composite PPCs, and the secondary outcome was the c-statistic for individual PPCs, including pneumonia, respiratory failure, reintubation, and others. Data were extracted using the CHARMS checklist, and bias was assessed with PROBAST. For models with data from three or more cohorts, discrimination was synthesised by pooling c-statistic using Bayesian meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed through prediction intervals.

resultsA total of 123 studies were included, covering 116 prediction models for PPCs, with 14 models (1 004 029 patients) eligible for meta-analysis. The c-statistic of all models ranged from 0.614 to 0.996 (median 0.80), with 50% of models self-reporting good (c-statistic >0.8) discrimination. In meta-analysis, the ARISCAT PPC score (summary c-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86), Xue's model (0.82, 0.75-0.89), and CARDOT score (0.73, 0.61-0.85) demonstrated moderate (c-statistic 0.7-0.8) to good discrimination for composite PPCs; the DAGDA score (0.81, 0.74-0.88), Wang's model (0.78, 0.70-0.86), and Jin's model (0.75, 0.68-0.82) for postoperative pneumonia; and Yoon's model (0.90, 0.84-0.96) and Nizamuddin's model (0.85, 0.78-0.92) for postoperative respiratory failure. The reliability of these models, however, is currently limited by the lack of external validation cohorts. Overall, 90.2% of models were assessed as having a high risk of bias.

conclusionsMany prediction models postoperative pulmonary complications have been developed, but the clinical utility of the vast majority remains uncertain. CLINICAL

trial registrationPROSPERO database (CRD42024580216).

Indexed as

Lung DiseasesModels, StatisticalPostoperative ComplicationsHumansRisk Assessmentmeta-analysispostoperative pulmonary complicationsprediction modelspredictorssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40473567
PMCPMC12597335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.