ReviewDer Nervenarzt2014
[Prediction in cerebrovascular diseases].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2014. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction of the outcome of cerebrovascular diseases or of the effects and complications of various forms of treatment are essential components of all stroke treatment regimens. This review focuses on the prediction of the stroke risk in primary prevention, the prediction of the risk of secondary stroke following a transient ischemic attack (TIA), the estimation of the outcome following manifest stroke and the treatment effects, the prediction of secondary cerebrovascular events and the prediction of vascular cognitive impairment following stroke. All predictive activities in cerebrovascular disease are hindered by the translation of predictive results from studies and patient populations to the individual patient. Future efforts in genetic analyses may be able to overcome this barrier and to enable individual prediction in the area of so-called personalized medicine. In all the various fields of prediction in cerebrovascular diseases, three major variables are always important: age of the patient, severity and subtype of the stroke. Increasing age, more severe stroke symptoms and the cardioembolic stroke subtype predict a poor outcome regarding both survival and permanent disability. This finding is somewhat banal and will therefore never replace the well experienced clinician judging the chances of a patient and taking into account the personal situation of this patient, e.g. for initiation of a rehabilitation program. Besides the individualized prediction, in times of restricted economic resources and increasing tendency to clarify questions of medical treatment in court, it seems unavoidable to use prediction in economic and medicolegal interaction with clinical medicine. This tendency will be accompanied by difficult ethical problems which neurologists must be aware of. Improved prediction should not be used to allocate or restrict resources or to restrict medically indicated treatment.
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.