SynthesisActa orthopaedica2024
Clinical prediction models for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: an external validation based on a systematic review and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Structured Critical Review and Descriptive Evidence Map of Validation, Uncertainty, and Workflow Integration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeExternal validation is a crucial step after prediction model development. Despite increasing interest in prediction models, external validation is frequently overlooked. We aimed to evaluate whether joint registries can be utilized for external validation of prediction models, and whether published prediction models are valid for the Dutch population with a total hip arthroplasty.
methodsWe identified prediction models developed in patients undergoing arthroplasty through a systematic literature search. Model variables were evaluated for availability in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI). We assessed the model performance in terms of calibration and discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]). Furthermore, the models were updated and evaluated through intercept recalibration and logistic recalibration.
resultsAfter assessing 54 papers, 19 were excluded for not describing a prediction model (n = 16) or focusing on non-TJA populations (n = 3), leaving 35 papers describing 44 prediction models. 90% (40/44) of the prediction models used outcomes or predictors missing in the LROI, such as diabetes, opioid use, and depression. 4 models could be externally validated on LROI data. The models' discrimination ranged between poor and acceptable and was similar to that in the development cohort. The calibration of the models was insufficient. The model performance improved slightly after updating.
conclusionExternal validation of the 4 models resulted in suboptimal predictive performance in the Dutch population, highlighting the importance of external validation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.