SynthesisScientific reports2025
Diagnosis models to predict peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta analysis.
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.
- Diagnostic Value of the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test and Other Functional Measures in Patients with Arteriosclerosis Obliterans.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects approximately 236.62 million individuals globally, exposing them to significantly increased risks of major limb events such as death and amputation. Concurrently, the number of diagnostic prediction models for PAD patients is steadily rising; however, these studies exhibit varying results, and their quality and applicability in clinical practice and future research remain unclear. To systematically assess the methodological quality of studies on PAD diagnostic prediction models. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify studies which aiming to develop or validate a diagnostic prediction model of PAD. The retrieval time limit is from the establishment of the database to June 1, 2025. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data from eligible studies and evaluated the risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A total of 24 studies on PAD diagnostic prediction models were included, most of which exhibited high risk of bias, predominantly in the domains of study population and statistical analysis. The meta-analyzed Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) was 0.79 [0.74, 0.84], indicating favorable model performance. The reported number of predictor variables ranged from 2 to 20, with common predictors including age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and BMI. This study demonstrates that PAD diagnostic prediction models exhibit good predictive performance, albeit accompanied by a high risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity across studies. Future research on modeling should emphasize comprehensive methodological enhancements in model design, construction, evaluation, and validation, with full disclosure of crucial model information. It should also utilize network computing for presenting model outcomes and conduct large-scale, multi-center external validation of existing models to promote their clinical application.Trial registration: This study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024557144).
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.