ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026
Risk prediction models for inadvertent intraoperative hypothermia in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
Objective: To systematically evaluate and meta-analyze the available risk prediction models for inadvertent intraoperative hypothermia (IIH) in surgical patients, and to summarize the methodological quality, predictive performance, and identified predictors. Methods: We searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang from inception until December 30, 2025 for studies on IIH risk prediction models. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the PROBAST tool. A meta-analysis was performed on identified predictors. Results: A total of 47 studies comprising 77 prediction models were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the models ranged from 0.683 to 0.968, with 51 models demonstrating good predictive performance (AUC > 0.700). The most common predictors included age, baseline body temperature, intraoperative fluid volume, duration of anesthesia, operating room temperature, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, volume of irrigation fluid, type of anesthesia, hypothyroidism, and type of surgery. Meta-analyses identified preoperative temperature (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.21-0.42), BMI (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.78-0.87), operating room temperature (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.68), and preoperative heart rate (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.97-0.99) as protective factors, while anesthesia duration (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02), surgical duration (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03), and age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06) were associated with increased risk. The PROBAST assessment indicated a high risk of bias in most included studies. Conclusion: Prediction models for IIH generally exhibit good predictive performance; however, their methodological quality requires improvement. Future research should adhere to established reporting guidelines, employ rigorous internal and external validation strategies, and aim for a standardized core set of predictors to improve model comparability and clinical applicability.
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.