SynthesisScientific reports2017
Blood Pressure Management for Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic test accuracy of machine learning algorithms for the detection intracranial hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis study.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Pooled it
- Association of Time of Day With Functional Outcome in Intracerebral Hemorrhage.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Individualized autoregulation-guided arterial blood pressure management in neurocritical care.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Review
- The impact of neurocritical patient transfer on outcomes: retrospective analysis of practice in the largest neurosurgical centre in Lithuania.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2024Article
- Nonpharmacological Treatments for Hospitalized Patients with Stroke: A Nuanced Approach to Prescribing Early Activity.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023Review
- Anthrax Meningoencephalitis and Intracranial Hemorrhage.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Review
- Severe stroke in patients admitted to intensive care unit after COVID-19 infection: Pictorial essay of a case series.Brain hemorrhages · 2022Article
- Acute intracerebral haemorrhage: diagnosis and management.Practical neurology · 2020Article
- Blood Pressure Management in Stroke.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2020Article
- The Unsolved Conundrum of Optimal Blood Pressure Target During Acute Haemorrhagic Stroke: A Comprehensive Analysis.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inconsistent data from the randomized trials ignites controversy on intensive blood pressure (BP) reduction for acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). This study aims to examine the association between BP lowering and clinical outcomes among patients with acute ICH. We conducted this meta-analysis based on the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were included from 6 RCTs involving 4412 patients. No significant improvements were observed in hematoma growth at 24 hours, neurologic improvement at 24 hours, hypotension at 72 hours, death or dependency at 90 days, mortality at 90 days, and serious adverse events at 90 days between intensive and conservative BP lowering groups. High heterogeneity was observed between estimates in hematoma growth (I
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.