SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025
A dual domain systematic review and meta-analysis of risk tool accuracy to predict cardiovascular morbidity in prehypertension and diabetic morbidity in prediabetes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Health forecasting predicts population trends through risk prediction algorithms which can estimate the risk of future disease developing. Screening algorithms can systematically identify patients with a high probability of undiagnosed diseases for diagnostic testing. We describe a dual domain systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of available risk tools to (1) predict prehypertensive deterioration to cardiovascular morbidity, & (2) predict prediabetes deterioration to diabetic morbidity. Materials and Methods: The primary outcome was the accuracy of the risk scores, and the secondary outcomes were the reporting quality and risk of bias. The dual domain systematic review included studies involving risk tools for (1) prehypertensive adults to predict cardiovascular morbidity (including hypertension, stroke and coronary heart disease) and (2) prediabetic adults to predict diabetic morbidity (including Type 2 Diabetes and end organ damage, such as diabetic nephropathy). Following PROSPERO registration (IDs 425686 & 425683), searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Results: Accuracy of risk prediction in prehypertension and prediabetes was high: the pooled C statistic for All Cause Cardiovascular Disease was 0.77 (CI 0.71, 0.84) and the pooled Sensitivity for All Cause Diabetic Disease Spectrum risk was 0.68 (CI 0.65, 0.7). However, we found high risk of bias, with inconsistent reporting in both prehypertension and prediabetes papers. Discussion: We propose nine recommendations for policymakers and commissioners, organised under an "A to I" framework. Conclusion: We found that predictive performance was generally accurate. However, there remain limitations due to methodological inconsistency, such as timeframe, which undermines comparison.
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.