SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Risk prediction models for postherpetic neuralgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk prediction models for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), aiming to provide a reference for Chinese scholars to develop higher-quality risk prediction models. Methods: This study systematically searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies on risk prediction models for postherpetic neuralgia. The search period for all databases was from inception to March 1, 2026. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted information. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies. R 4.5.1 software was used to perform meta-analyses of the area under the curve (AUC) values and predictive factors of the models. Results: A total of 25 studies were ultimately included in this study, with sample sizes ranging from 90 to 8,878 cases and PHN incidence rates ranging from 6.2% to 52.9%. Among them, 18 studies performed internal validation and 4 studies performed external validation. The literature quality assessment results indicated high risk of bias and good applicability in all studies. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the models ranged from 0.71 to 0.98. Meta-analysis results showed that the pooled AUC was 0.86 (0.82-0.90), indicating good predictive performance. In addition, Age, VAS, rash site, Prodromal pain, and Extent of Rash were common predictive factors for the occurrence of postherpetic neuralgia. Conclusion: Research on risk prediction models for postherpetic neuralgia is still at an early stage, with an overall high risk of bias and a lack of clinical application. In the future, scholars may develop high-quality risk prediction models with high accuracy and strong generalizability based on machine learning methods and multicenter, large-sample prospective studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261354649, Identifier CRD420261354649.
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.