ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Prediction models for intraventricular hemorrhage in very preterm infants: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
- Developing and Validating a Machine Learning Model to Predict Brain Injury in Preterm Infants Using Multisource Data from the Early Postnatal Period.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To provide an overview and critical appraisal of prediction models for Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) in very preterm infants. Methods: Our comprehensive literature search encompassed PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library along with targeted searches of the Chinese Medical Association's online journal platform (up to 8 February 2025). We examined relevant citations during full-text review and thoroughly evaluated them for inclusion. We included studies that reported the development and/or validation of predictive models for IVH in preterm infants born at <32 weeks. We extracted the data independently based on the TRIPOD-SRMA checklist. We checked for risk of bias and applicability independently using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment. Results: A total of 30 prediction models from 11 studies reporting on model development and 2 models from 2 studies reporting on external validation were included in the analysis. The most frequently reported outcome in both model development studies (54.5%) and model validation studies (50%) was IVH I-IV. The most frequently used predictors in the models were gestational age (43.33%), followed by sex (36.67%), antenatal corticosteroids (33.33%), diastolic blood pressure (33.33%), birth weight (30%), and mean airway pressure (30%). The median C-statistic reported at model development was 0.83 (range 0.74-0.99). The majority of the included studies had a high risk of bias, mainly due to suboptimal analysis and mishandling of missing data. Furthermore, small sample sizes and insufficient numbers of event patients were observed in both types of studies. No meta-analysis was performed because no two studies validated the same model in comparable populations. We summarized performance metrics (e.g., C-statistic) descriptively. Conclusion: The included studies may still be flawed to a certain extent. It is recommended that future studies augment the sample size and number of events, whilst ensuring that any missing data is addressed in a rational manner. Furthermore, the statistical analysis should be optimised, and the study made transparent for the purpose of model generalisation.
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.