Hemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
Predictive Models for Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors' conclusion
Meta-analysis of six included scores revealed no clear "gold standard" prediction model, although the CardShock score had the highest discrimination and most accurate calibration.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with cardiogenic shock; studies developing, redeveloping or validating multivariable models predicting all-cause mortality (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus to June 15, 2024)
- Participants
- 89,546 adults · 102 studies · 126 cohorts
- Comparison
- Prespecified mortality prediction models
- Outcome
- Prediction of all-cause mortality: discrimination (pooled AUC) and calibration (O:E ratio)
Methodological detailsrandom-effects inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis, subgroup analyses, 40 unique prediction models identified
- Random-effects inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis
- Subgroup analyses
- 40 unique prediction models identified
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Discrimination and calibration of prediction models
| Group | AUC | O:E |
|---|---|---|
| CardShock | 0.73 [95% CI, 0.70-0.76] | 1.06 [95% CI, 0.79-1.41] |
CardShock
AUC0.73 [95% CI, 0.70-0.76]
O:E1.06 [95% CI, 0.79-1.41]
Further pooled results
Subgroup analyses (subgroup)
- Highly variable between studies; no superior prediction model
Unique author-developed prediction models
- Superior to existing models, yet lacked generalizability
Original publication
Predictive Models for Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit Care Med. Published 10 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →