SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Risk prediction models for peristomal moisture-associated skin damage in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peristomal Moisture-associated Skin Damage (PMASD) is a complication of enterostomy that significantly increases the healthcare burden and contributes to poorer patient prognoses. Risk prediction models for PMASD offer significant utility in directing prophylactic strategies. However, the methodological quality and applicability of existing models remain uncertain. Objective: This study aims to systematically identify and critically evaluate currently available risk prediction models for PMASD. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Biomedical literature Database (CBM) were systematically searched from inception to 1 January 2026. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted and evaluated information based on the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS). R4.4.0 software was used to conduct meta-analysis. Results: A total of 11 prediction models from 10 studies were included, with an incidence rate ranging from 22.8 to 59.1%. All studies indicated a substantial risk of bias, thus limiting their utility in clinical practice. The area under the curve (AUC) values of 11 models ranged from 0.812 to 0.914. The history of radiotherapy, type of stoma, stoma opening height, and surgical wound in the plate area were identified as the strongest predictors. In total, three studies validated the model externally, and six studies validated the model through an integration of internal and external methods, whereas one study did not undergo any validation after model development. Conclusion: In this systematic review, although most models performed well in terms of applicability, all models exhibited inherent limitations due to a high risk of bias. In the future, large-sample, multicenter, and high-quality prospective clinical studies should be carried out to optimize the predictive models, so as to improve their predictive ability and clinical application value. Systematic trial registration: identifier: CRD420251089071.
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.