SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Machine learning-based prediction model for postpartum stress urinary incontinence risk: 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: Postpartum stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a highly prevalent condition that imposes substantial physical, psychological, and economic burdens, underscoring the necessity of early identification of high-risk populations to improve clinical outcomes. However, existing machine learning (ML) prediction models yield inconsistent results, and their performance and reliability remain uncertain. This review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on ML-based prediction models for postpartum SUI. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and predictive performance of ML-based prediction models for postpartum SUI, and to quantitatively synthesize their discrimination metrics. Methods: A systematic search of nine databases was conducted from inception to 23 March 2026. Studies developing and validating ML-based risk prediction models for postpartum SUI were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the PROBAST+AI tool, and reporting quality was evaluated with the TRIPOD+AI statement. A meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was performed, employing robust variance estimation (RVE) to account for dependent effect sizes. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261369137). Results: Seven studies encompassing a total of 4,072 patients were included. All studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. The pooled AUC across 20 training models was 0.931 (95% CI: 0.880 Conclusion: Current ML prediction models demonstrate acceptable discrimination for postpartum SUI, but they exhibit a high risk of bias, poor reporting standards, and a lack of external validation, rendering them not yet suitable for direct clinical application. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261369137, CRD420261369137.
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.