SynthesisBMC psychiatry2026
Prediction models for postpartum post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the increasing number of studies on prediction models for identifying the risk of postpartum post-traumatic stress disorder (PP-PTSD), the quality and clinical applicability of these models have not been clarified yet.
objectivesTo systematically review and appraise the prediction models for PP-PTSD.
methodsFrom inception to March 30, 2026, Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, CNKI, WANFANG and VIP were searched for primary studies involving development or validation of prediction models. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature for issues of bias and applicability. The area under the curve (AUC) of externally validated models was extracted for meta-analysis. The protocol for this study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42025630468).
resultsSixteen studies comprising 29 models met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies were from China, and 13 models applied machine learning. All studies were judged to have high risk of bias, primarily due to data source quality and inadequate reporting of outcomes and analysis. Fourteen studies(87.5%) were rated as having low concern regarding applicability. Seven studies (43.8%) performed external validation, including only two studies validating for ML models. The pooled AUC of these validated logistic regression models was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90). Moderate heterogeneity was observed across these studies (I
conclusionCurrent PP-PTSD prediction models show preliminary predictive potential but suffer from significant methodological limitations. Future research needs to follow the TRIPOD guidelines and obtain reliable models through rigorous study design and external validation. This will facilitate external validation of the models in the next step, so that it can be promoted to diverse populations.
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.