Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41760014›Full record

ArticleMedicine2026

Comparative accuracy of risk prediction models for mortality in acute coronary syndrome: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

Yike Wang, Zhimei Chen, Jiantong Shen, Jianping Song, Meijuan Lan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Yike WangDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0004-0544-8979
Zhimei ChenDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guizhou, China.
Jiantong ShenSchool of Medicine, Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Jianping SongDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Meijuan LanDepartment of Nursing, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

the National Social Science Fund of China 20BTQ042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accuracy of different risk prediction models must be directly compared using research evidence from each model. This study systematically collected, evaluated and synthesized comparative accuracy data of mortality risk models for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients to compare their performance.

methodsAn evidence-based approach was used to investigate ACS mortality risk prediction models. First, we searched multiple databases from 2009 to 2024, to identify multivariate predictive models for predicting ACS mortality risk. Included studies were screened, quality-assessed, and data extracted. PROBAST evaluated the risk of bias; heterogeneity was analyzed via MetaDiSc1.4 (I2 statistic). Data analysis used RevMan5.3 and MetaDiSc1.4. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive/negative likelihood ratios (LR+/LR-), and area under the curve (AUC) of models were calculated for comparison.

resultsA total of 8277 documents were retrieved, and 6 studies were finally included, involving 5 risk prediction models, a total of 24,911 patients with ACS, including 18,443 males (74.04%) and 6468 females (25.96%), with 1637 deaths. The SEN of the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) model was 0.78, SPE was 0.76, and AUC was 0.86; the SEN of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction model was 0.51, SPE was 0.81, and AUC was 0.64; the SEN of the rapid emergency medicine score (REMS) model was 0.78, SPE was 0.46, and AUC was 0.41. The Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II and REMS2 were reported separately due to non-combinable effect sizes, with SEN 0.77 to 0.95, SPE 0.22 to 0.99, and AUC 0.71-0.92. All 6 studies compared model accuracy. Pooled evidence indicated GRACE (AUC = 0.79) outperformed thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (0.59) and REMS (0.41); APACHE II (0.82) outperformed REMS (0.61) but was slightly inferior to GRACE (0.86).

conclusionThe GRACE risk prediction model is highly accurate and includes comprehensive clinical research data. It allows medical staff to accurately assess the death risk of ACS patients and effectively reduce their mortality. Therefore, the study suggests that clinical nursing staff use the GRACE risk prediction model to assess the risk of death in patients with ACS.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPrediction AlgorithmsRisk AssessmentSystematic Reviews as Topicacute coronary syndromecomparative accuracy evaluationdeath risk prediction modelsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41760014
PMCPMC12956242

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.