ArticlePeerJ2025
Development and external validation of a multivariate model for predicting pneumonia in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 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
Background: Patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) who develop pneumonia experience substantially elevated risks of hospitalization and mortality, while also incurring significantly heightened healthcare-related financial burdens. Our goal is to establish a forecasting model to assess the individual risk of pneumonia in patients undergoing MHD. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was carried out between January 2018 and November 2024, involving 405 MHD patients from two medical centers. The variables underwent adjustment through multivariate Cox regression analysis, and the forecasting model was created and verified. Results: The median follow-up time of the external validation set was 35 months (interquartile range: 20-43), and the median follow-up time of the modeling set was 22 months (12-24). The event happened in 101 (34.83%) out of 290 patients in the modeling set and 45 (39.13%) out of 115 patients in the external validation set. The model predictors included history of diabetes and coronary heart disease; serous effusion; white blood cell; albumin-globulin ratio; left ventricular mass index, and age. The C-index was 0.753 (0.684, 0.822) for the external validation set and 0.772 (95% CI [0.724-0.821]) for the modeling set. The model showed excellent calibration ability throughout the risk spectrum, and decision curve analysis showed that it could maximize the prognosis of patients. Conclusion: The created predictive model provided a precise, individualized evaluation of pneumonia risk in patients with MHD. It can be used to identify individuals at high risk of pulmonary infection in patients undergoing MHD and guide their treatment and prognosis follow-up.
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.