SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Risk prediction models for mortality in patients with severe pneumonia: 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between the glucose-to-platelet ratio and short-term and long-term all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram integrating inflammatory-nutritional-metabolic composite indices for predicting short-term adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with pneumonia.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number of risk prediction models for mortality in patients with severe pneumonia (SP) is increasing, while the quality and clinical applicability of these models remain unclear. This study aimed to systematically review published research on risk prediction models for mortality in patients with SP. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 31, 2024. Data from selected studies were extracted, including study design, participants, diagnostic criteria, sample size, predictors, model development, and performance. The prediction model risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability. A meta-analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) values from validated models was conducted using Stata 17.0 software. Results: A total of 22 prediction models from 18 studies were included in this review, including 15 logistic regression models, two cox proportional regression hazards models, two classification and regression trees, one light gradient boosting machine, and one multilayer perceptron. The reported AUC values ranged from 0.713 to 0.952. Seventeen studies were found to have a high risk of bias, primarily due to inappropriate data sources and poor reporting of the analysis domain. The pooled AUC value of five validated models was 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.88), indicating a fair level of discrimination. Conclusion: Although the included studies reported that the risk prediction models for mortality in patients with SP exhibited a certain level of discriminative ability, most of these models were found to have a high risk of bias. Future studies should focus on developing new models with larger sample sizes, rigorous study designs, and multicenter external validation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024589877, identifier: CRD42024589877.
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.