SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Risk prediction model for parastomal hernia after colorectal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
objectiveTo systematically assess risk prediction models for Parastomal Hernia after colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsWe searched databases until October 2025 for studies developing or validating Parastomal Hernia prediction models. Study quality was evaluated using the PROBAST tool. Model performance measures were pooled via meta-analysis, while predictors were summarized qualitatively using narrative synthesis.
resultsSeven retrospective studies were included. Four studies contributed to the internal validation pool, yielding a high pooled discrimination (AUC = 0.910). Two studies contributed to the external validation pool, showing good performance (AUC = 0.854). Key predictors consistently identified included stoma diameter, age, sex, BMI, and albumin. All studies were rated at high risk of bias due to retrospective design and methodological limitations.
conclusionCurrent prediction models show promising discriminatory performance but are at high risk of bias and have undergone limited external validation. Their clinical applicability remains uncertain. Future research requires rigorous prospective development and broader validation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251168201.
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.