Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40771466›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025

Risk prediction models for mortality in patients with severe pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaoyu Wang, Zhenzhen Feng, Lu Wang, Wenrui Liu, Jiansheng Li

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Xiaoyu WangDepartment of Respiratory Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Zhenzhen FengDepartment of Respiratory Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Lu WangDepartment of Respiratory Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Wenrui LiuDepartment of Respiratory Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Jiansheng LiDepartment of Respiratory Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

meta-analysismortalityprediction modelsevere pneumoniasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40771466
PMCPMC12325059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.