SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
Risk prediction models for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of risk prediction models for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer is increasing, but the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice and future research remain unknown.
objectiveTo systematically review studies published on prediction models for the risk of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer patients.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
methodsA search was conducted in databases. Data from selected studies were extracted, including study design, data sources, outcome definitions, sample size, predictive factors, model development, and performance indicators. The risk of bias in prediction models was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist.
resultsFifty articles were included in this meta-analysis. Most studies used Logistic Regression (LR) to establish risk prediction models. The training model's overall c-statistic was 0.85 (95% CI (0.81-0.89)), whereas the validation model's overall c-statistic was 0.82 (95% CI (0.80-0.83)). The overall pooled accuracy rate for the training group model was 0.80 [95% CI (0.72-0.87)], and the overall accuracy rate for model validation was 0.71 [95% CI (0.61-0.79)]. Tumor size was the most common risk predictive factor. All studies had a high risk of bias, primarily due to inappropriate data sources.
conclusionBased on the results of the PROBAST analysis, it was determined that all of the studies were highly biased. Models with bigger samples, more stringent research methods, inclusion of multicenter samples, and external validations should be the focus of future studies.
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.