Evidence mapPaperPMID 40866967Full record

SynthesisBMC surgery2025

Risk prediction models for complications after flap repair surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiebin Yang, Xinya Qin, Lili Hou, Yamei Liu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jiebin YangChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Sichuan, 610075, China.
Xinya QinChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Sichuan, 610075, China.
Lili HouDepartment of Nursing, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, China. pisces_liz@163.com.
Yamei LiuChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Sichuan, 610075, China.

Funding

Construction of the Advanced Specialized Nursing Base of the School of Nursing, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Hlgy1901sjk
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically evaluate the performance and applicability of risk prediction models for complications after flap repair and to provide guidance for building and refining models.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP and Wanfang were searched for studies on risk prediction models for flap complications. The search period is from inception to December 28, 2024. The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the quality of the prediction model research, and Stata 18 software was employed to meta-analyze the predictors of the models.

resultsA total of 16 studies were included, 28 risk prediction models were constructed, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranged from 0.655 to 0.964, with 16 prediction models performing well (AUC > 0.7). Eleven articles underwent model calibration, 16 were validated internally, and 3 were validated externally. The results of the PROBAST review revealed that all 16 studies were at high risk of bias. The incidence rate of flap complications was 14.8% (95% CI, 10.7 - 19.0%). Body mass index (BMI), smoking history, long flap reconstruction time, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and postoperative infection were independent risk factors for complications after flap repair (P < 0.05).

conclusionThe risk prediction model for complications after flap repair has certain predictive value, but the overall risk of bias is high, and there is a lack of external validation; thus, it needs to be further enhanced and optimized to increase its prediction accuracy and clinical practicability.

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical FlapsHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsComplicationFlap repairMeta-analysisRisk prediction modelSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40866967
PMCPMC12382001

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.