SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
A systematic review focusing on how medical researchers report variables in risk scores or models to predict prognosis of patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVariability in risk variable selection for prognostic scores/models after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is poorly characterized. This systematic review examined how researchers report such variables and compared selection between Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE (inception to December 2025) for English-language studies developing, validating, or comparing risk scores/models for post-PCI prognosis. Data were synthesized descriptively. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST on a random sample.
resultsFrom 981 records, 212 articles (180 distinct scores/models) were included. Most frequent variables: sex/gender, age, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, Scr/eGFR, LVEF, and culprit artery. Significant differences between Caucasian (n = 94) and non-Caucasian (n = 86) scores/models were found for SBP, heart rate, Scr/eGFR, ACS presentation, ST-segment deviation, and culprit artery. PROBAST (20-model sample) showed high risk of bias in 70%.
conclusionsRisk variable selection varies substantially across post-PCI prognostic scores/models, with significant ethnic differences. High risk of bias in existing studies highlights the need for more rigorous methodology.
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.