SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Early warning of postoperative recurrence in trigeminal neuralgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction models.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative recurrence remains a major challenge in trigeminal neuralgia surgery. Prediction models are crucial for personalized management, but their quality and performance are unclear. Methods: We searched eight databases up to September 23, 2025, for studies on trigeminal neuralgia recurrence prediction. Data extraction followed the CHARMS checklist, and risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. A random-effects model was used to meta-analyze the area under the curve, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Twenty studies (4,291 patients) were included. The pooled area under the curve was 0.86 for the training set and 0.83 for the validation set. The main sources of bias included inaccuracies in predictor measurement, inconsistent definitions of recurrence, and incomplete reporting. Models based on microvascular decompression appeared to perform best. Key predictors included age 65 years or older, disease duration longer than 5 years, atypical pain, and specific surgical approaches. Conclusion: This is the first meta-analysis in this field, and suggests that prediction models for trigeminal neuralgia recurrence demonstrate promising discriminatory performance. However, given the potential risks of bias, publication bias, and heterogeneity, the pooled AUC may be overestimated and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, CRD420251153545.
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.