ArticleKidney medicine2026
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Predictive Performance of Stroke and Bleeding Prediction Models in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Kidney Disease.
Article in Kidney medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral anticoagulation and left atrial appendage closure in dialysis atrial fibrillation: between stroke prevention and bleeding hazard.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
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
Rationale & Objective: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for ischemic stroke (IS) and bleeding. The applicability of prediction models in this population remains debated. This study aimed to (1) identify external validations of CHA Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Participants: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, PMC, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Premier for studies externally validating IS and bleeding prediction models in patients with AF undergoing dialysis or with CKD. Exposures: AF and CKD or dialysis. Outcomes: IS and bleeding. Analytical Approach: Eligible studies were reviewed, discrimination was pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, calibration was calculated and plotted, and the ROB score was assessed using the prediction model ROB assessment tool. Results: The CHA Limitations: All studies were at high ROB scores, contained within- and between-study heterogeneity, and often merged scoring categories or populations, limiting comparability. Conclusions: Although modest, the discrimination of prediction models in patients with AF undergoing dialysis or with CKD is similar to patients with AF without CKD. Despite the described limitations, these models can be used in clinical practice for patients with CKD and patients undergoing dialysis.
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.