ArticlePloS one2014
Penumbra pattern assessment in acute stroke patients: comparison of quantitative and non-quantitative methods in whole brain CT perfusion.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of short-protocol emergency brain MRI after negative non-contrast CT for minor stroke detection.European radiology · 2022Article
- Differential Benefit of Collaterals for Stroke Patients Treated with Thrombolysis or Supportive Care : A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2020Article
- Detection of single-phase CTA occult vessel occlusions in acute ischemic stroke using CT perfusion-based wavelet-transformed angiography.European radiology · 2017Article
- Multimodal imaging in acute ischemic stroke.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeWhile penumbra assessment has become an important part of the clinical decision making for acute stroke patients, there is a lack of studies measuring the reliability and reproducibility of defined assessment techniques in the clinical setting. Our aim was to determine reliability and reproducibility of different types of three-dimensional penumbra assessment methods in stroke patients who underwent whole brain CT perfusion imaging (WB-CTP). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 29 patients with a confirmed MCA infarction who underwent initial WB-CTP with a scan coverage of 100 mm in the z-axis. Two blinded and experienced readers assessed the flow-volume-mismatch twice and in two quantitative ways: Performing a volumetric mismatch analysis using OsiriX imaging software (MM(VOL)) and visual estimation of mismatch (MM(EST)). Complementarily, the semiquantitative Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score for CT perfusion was used to define mismatch (MM(ASPECTS)). A favorable penumbral pattern was defined by a mismatch of ≥ 30% in combination with a cerebral blood flow deficit of ≤ 90 ml and an MM(ASPECTS) score of ≥ 1, respectively. Inter- and intrareader agreement was determined by Kappa-values and ICCs.
resultsOverall, MM(VOL) showed considerably higher inter-/intrareader agreement (ICCs: 0.751/0.843) compared to MM(EST) (0.292/0.749). In the subgroup of large (≥ 50 mL) perfusion deficits, inter- and intrareader agreement of MM(VOL) was excellent (ICCs: 0.961/0.942), while MM(EST )interreader agreement was poor (0.415) and intrareader agreement was good (0.919). With respect to penumbra classification, MM(VOL) showed the highest agreement (interreader agreement: 25 agreements/4 non-agreements/κ: 0.595; intrareader agreement 27/2/0.833), followed by MM(EST) (22/7/0.471; 23/6/0.577), and MM(ASPECTS) (18/11/0.133; 21/8/0.340).
conclusionThe evaluated approach of volumetric mismatch assessment is superior to pure visual and ASPECTS penumbra pattern assessment in WB-CTP and helps to precisely judge the extent of 3-dimensional mismatch in acute stroke patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.