SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Predictive model for CRT risk in cancer patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With the high incidence of central venous access device catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with cancer, its early onset, and the characteristics of clinically insignificant symptoms, risk assessment is essential for the targeted application of thromboprophylaxis. The aim of this paper was to review the risk prediction models developed for central venous access device CRT in patients with cancer and to evaluate their performance. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases were searched, and the search timeframes ranged from the establishment of the database to May 22, 2024. Two researchers independently performed literature screenings, data extractions, and quality assessments. The risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were assessed using the Predictive Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. A meta-analysis of the areas under the curve (AUC) values for model validation was performed using Stata 17.0 software. Results: Nineteen papers with 29 predictive models were included in this systematic review, reporting AUC values of 0.470-1.000. The incidence of central venous access device CRT in cancer patients ranges from 2.02 to 39.4%. The most commonly used predictors are D-dimer levels, BMI, and diabetes. All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias, mainly due to poor reporting of the areas analyzed. The combined AUC value of the six validated models was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.86), indicating good model discrimination. Discussion: Most available CRT prediction models exhibited moderate-to-good predictive performance. However, all the studies were rated as having a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST scale. Future studies should adhere to methodological and reporting guidelines for large-sample, multi-center external validation of models, focusing on studies that report rigorous design and optimization or on the development of new models. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42024516563.
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.