SynthesisScientific reports2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular event risk prediction models in maintenance hemodialysis patients.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This research pursues a systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the cardiovascular event risk prediction models for maintenance hemodialysis patients. Through systematic literature searching, the titles and abstracts of 23,707 related papers were initially screened, ultimately including 16 papers covering 17 prediction models. The results reveal that among these models, a total of 16 predictive variables were chosen at least twice, with age, diabetes history, and history of cardiovascular disease being the primary predictors. Regarding model validation, 14 models underwent internal validation, 3 models underwent external validation, while 3 models were not subjected to any form of validation. Additionally, calibration testing was performed on 14 models. Risk of bias assessment showed that only 1 model was rated as low risk bias, while the other models were rated as high risk bias due to issues with study cohort characteristics and methodology. Meta-analysis results showed that the combined C-statistic for 13 prediction models was 0.80 (95%CI = 0.74, 0.86), and no significant publication bias was detected. Thus, future construction and validation of prediction models should strictly follow reliable methodological standards and enhance external validation to provide more reliable evidence-based guidance for predicting cardiovascular event risk in maintenance hemodialysis patients.
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.