Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056039›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Prediction Models and Their External Validation Studies for Mortality of Patients with Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review.

Tetsu Ohnuma, Shigehiko Uchino

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. External validation of a predictive model for post-treatment persistent disease byEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tetsu OhnumaIntensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Shigehiko UchinoIntensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jichi Medical University Saitama Medical Center · JPJikei University School of Medicine · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review AKI outcome prediction models and their external validation studies, to describe the discrepancy of reported accuracy between the results of internal and external validations, and to identify variables frequently included in the prediction models.

methodsWe searched the MEDLINE and Web of Science electronic databases (until January 2016). Studies were eligible if they derived a model to predict mortality of AKI patients or externally validated at least one of the prediction models, and presented area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUROC) to assess model discrimination. Studies were excluded if they described only results of logistic regression without reporting a scoring system, or if a prediction model was generated from a specific cohort.

resultsA total of 2204 potentially relevant articles were found and screened, of which 12 articles reporting original prediction models for hospital mortality in AKI patients and nine articles assessing external validation were selected. Among the 21 studies for AKI prediction models and their external validation, 12 were single-center (57%), and only three included more than 1,000 patients (14%). The definition of AKI was not uniform and none used recently published consensus criteria for AKI. Although good performance was reported in their internal validation, most of the prediction models had poor discrimination with an AUROC below 0.7 in the external validation studies. There were 10 common non-renal variables that were reported in more than three prediction models: mechanical ventilation, age, gender, hypotension, liver failure, oliguria, sepsis/septic shock, low albumin, consciousness and low platelet count.

conclusionsInformation in this systematic review should be useful for future prediction model derivation by providing potential candidate predictors, and for future external validation by listing up the published prediction models.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAcute Kidney InjuryFemaleHumansMalePrognosisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID28056039
PMCPMC5215838
OpenAlexW2570927232

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.