What type of study is this?

This is a Systematic Review study (also classified as: Meta-Analysis).

September 10, 2025BMC SurgeryOpen Access

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

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Systematic review evaluates risk prediction models for complications after flap repair, highlighting the need for more validation.

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models ranged from 0.655 to 0.964, indicating variable performance rates.
Of the 28 risk prediction models, 16 performed well with an AUC greater than 0.7, making them suitable for clinical use.
Independent risk factors identified include body mass index, smoking history, diabetes mellitus, and postoperative infection.
The overall high risk of bias in all studies stresses the need for external validation to improve model credibility.

Yang et al. (2025) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 10, 2025BMC SurgeryOpen Access

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Systematic review evaluates risk prediction models for complications after flap repair, highlighting the need for more validation.

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models ranged from 0.655 to 0.964, indicating variable performance rates.
Of the 28 risk prediction models, 16 performed well with an AUC greater than 0.7, making them suitable for clinical use.
Independent risk factors identified include body mass index, smoking history, diabetes mellitus, and postoperative infection.
The overall high risk of bias in all studies stresses the need for external validation to improve model credibility.

Yang et al. (2025) studied this question.

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark