SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Risk prediction models for frailty in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
Objective: To systematically review the frailty risk prediction models for stroke patients. Data sources: Eight databases including PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP and SinoMed were systematically searched from the inception of the databases to May 31, 2025. Study selection: Studies were screened independently by two researchers with systematic evidence-based training. In this review, We extracted data based on Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS). Data extraction: Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted study data. We employed the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to assess both the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies. Data synthesis: A total of 19 studies and 24 frailty risk prediction models for stroke patients were included. The area under the Receiver operating Characteristic curve (AUC) of the included models ranged from 0.629 to 0.940, with 21 models having an AUC > 0.7. The combined AUC value of the 10 validation models was 0.87. However, all studies were at high risk of bias according to PROBAST, suggesting this estimate is likely inflated due to methodological weaknesses. The most frequently used predictors in the included models were age, activities of daily living, and NIHSS score. Conclusion: Current frailty prediction models for stroke patients have methodological weaknesses and high risk of bias. All included studies were from China (2023-2025), severely limiting generalizability to other populations. The pooled AUC (0.87) is likely inflated and should be interpreted cautiously. Rigorous external validation in diverse settings is needed before clinical use. Future studies should expand the sample size, strictly carry out study design and carry out multi-center external validation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251075547.
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.