Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21246389›Full record

ReviewNeurosurgical review2011

Postoperative intracranial haemorrhage: a review.

Marc A Seifman, Phillip M Lewis, Jeffrey V Rosenfeld, Peter Y K Hwang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurosurgical review, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marc A SeifmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Phillip M Lewis
Jeffrey V Rosenfeld
Peter Y K Hwang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postoperative haemorrhage (POH) is one of the most serious complications of any cranial neurosurgical procedure and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The relative paucity of work investigating this postoperative complication prompted us to undertake a review of the literature, focussing on demographic, clinical, and surgical risk factors. A literature search was undertaken using Ovid MEDLINE (1950-2009) using keywords including craniectomy, craniotomy, neurosurgery, intracranial, reoperation, repeat craniotomy, postoperative, haemorrhage, haematoma, and bleeding. The rates of POH following intracranial procedures reported in the literature vary greatly, and meaningful comparison is difficult. We defined postoperative haemorrhage as that following craniotomy, which is clinically significant and requires surgical evacuation. Risk factors include pre-existing medical comorbidities including hypertension, coagulopathies and haematological abnormalities, intraoperative hypertension and blood loss, certain lesion pathologies including tumours, chronic subdural haematomas, and deficiencies in haemostasis. We conclude by providing recommendations for clinical practice based on the literature reviewed to aid clinicians in the detection and avoidance of POH.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnticoagulantsAtherosclerosisBlood Loss, SurgicalBrain DiseasesCerebral Amyloid AngiopathyDiabetes ComplicationsFemaleHemostasisHumansHypertensionIntracranial HemorrhagesMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, IntraoperativeAnticoagulantsPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.