SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Systematic review of risk prediction models for catheter-associated urinary tract infection.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review and critically appraise published risk prediction models for catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) in adult inpatients. Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to June 30, 2026. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data using the CHARMS checklist; risk of bias and applicability were assessed with PROBAST. Results: Thirteen reports describing 18 prediction models from 12 independent cohorts were included. All were retrospective, with sample sizes ranging from 140 to 122,386 and CAUTI incidence from 1.3 to 24.7%. Logistic regression predominated (11 of 13 reports). Derivation AUC values ranged from 0.611 to 0.993; nine exceeded 0.800. The most frequently identified predictors were age, catheter dwell time, diabetes mellitus, level of consciousness, and serum albumin. All 13 reports were rated high overall risk of bias by PROBAST, driven principally by temporal leakage - the incorporation of time-varying predictors into models intended for use at catheter insertion - insufficient events-per-variable ratios, data-driven variable selection, and near-universal absence of external validation. Only two reports conducted external validation (AUC = 0.758 and 0.970). Calibration was systematically underreported. Conclusion: Derivation AUC values are prone to optimism owing to pervasive methodological deficiencies, and current evidence is insufficient to support clinical implementation of any existing model. Future research should prioritize multicenter external validation over novel model development, with prospective designs,
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.