SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Risk prediction models for post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number of risk prediction models for post-stroke cognitive impairment has been increasing, but the prediction performance and clinical applicability of existing models still require further verification. Objective: To systematically evaluate the published risk prediction models for cognitive impairment after stroke in patients with acute stroke. Methods: The literatures on the risk prediction model of cognitive impairment after stroke in PubMed, EMBASE, web of science and Cochrane library databases on October 1, 2025 were retrieved. Extract data from the selected studies, including the collected data including author, publication year, country, time of inclusion, whether it is a multicenter study, research type, stroke type, diagnostic criteria for cognitive impairment, number of post-stroke cognitive impairment cases, model development method, validation method, missing data processing, model presentation, model prediction performance, model calibration, and predictive factors finally included in the model. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool checklist was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability. Results: A total of 4,715 studies were retrieved and 29 studies were included after the selection process. These studies were published from 2016 to 2023. In 29 studies, the area under the curve of development set models ranged from 0.69 to 0.97. Using random-effects meta-analysis, the descriptive summary AUC across 12 development set models was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90), with substantial heterogeneity (I Conclusion: Although the descriptive summary AUC values (0.85 for development, 0.82 for validation) suggest apparently acceptable discriminative ability, all 29 included prediction model studies were judged to be at high overall risk of bias according to the PROBAST tool (particularly in the analysis domain). This likely leads to overestimation of reported model performance. Therefore, the models should be considered as preliminary tools that require further rigorous external validation before clinical application. Future research should develop a risk prediction model with larger samples and multi centers, and carry out internal and external validation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/search, identifier: CRD42024502063.
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.