Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30932784›Full record

SynthesisStroke2019

Surgical Decision Making in Brain Hemorrhage.

Barbara A Gregson, Patrick Mitchell, A David Mendelow

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stroke, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04200781 (A Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind, Multi-center Clinical Study of Shengdi Dahuang Decoction in the Treatment of Acute Hemorrhagic Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT04200781 phase4unknown statusnot on this map

A Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind, Multi-center Clinical Study of Shengdi Dahuang Decoction in the Treatment of Acute Hemorrhagic Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorShuGuang HospitalRan2019 to 2022Enrolled464ConditionsHemorrhagic StrokeArmsGranules of Shengdi Dahuang Decoction, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Purely Endoscopic Evacuation of Intracranial Hematomas.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2024
    Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Barbara A GregsonFrom the Neurosurgical Trials Group, Newcastle University.
Patrick MitchellFrom the Neurosurgical Trials Group, Newcastle University.
A David MendelowFrom the Neurosurgical Trials Group, Newcastle University.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose- The STICH (Surgical Trial in Lobar Intracerebral Haemorrhage) I and II trials randomized patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) to early surgery or initial conservative treatment. Both were nonsignificant; possibly because surgery has minimal effect on recovery, or because surgery benefits some and harms others. We introduce a new nonparametric method of analysis. The method is then applied to data from a third trial, STITCH(Trauma) (Surgical Trial in Traumatic Intracerebral Haemorrhage), which addressed a similar surgical question in head-injured patients. Methods- Data from 1541 patients from the STICH trials were analyzed using (1) standard meta-analysis of prognosis-based dichotomized outcome and prespecified standard subgroups of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS): 3-8, 9-12, and 13-15; (2) new nonparametric regression of ranked Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale against ranked GCS and ranked volume; and (3) analysis (1) repeated using categories identified by analysis (2). Results- Standard meta-analysis showed more favorable outcomes, although nonsignificant, with surgery if presenting GCS was 9-12 (spontaneous ICH odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.48-1.03; P=0.07]; traumatic odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.18-1.26; P=0.14]). Ranked analysis showed a similar pattern of results for both spontaneous and traumatic ICH. Surgery was harmful for small lesions with increasing benefit for larger volumes. With GCS, surgery had little effect at either ends of the spectrum but suggested a beneficial effect in the range 10 to 13 (identified graphically). Repeating the meta-analysis with this categorization showed significant benefit for surgery (spontaneous odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51-1.00; P=0.05]; traumatic odds ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.05-0.51; P=0.002]). Conclusions- The nonsignificant results observed in the STICH trials are because of mixing patients who benefit from surgery with those who are harmed. Patients with a GCS 10-13 or a large ICH are likely to benefit from surgery. Our analysis showed a similar effect on traumatic ICH/contusion data and promises to be a valuable tool. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ . Unique identifiers: ISRCTN19976990 (STITCH), ISRCTN22153967 (STICH II), and ISRCTN19321911 (STITCH[Trauma]).

Indexed as

Cerebral HemorrhageClinical Decision-MakingHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiccerebral hemorrhageconservative treatmentdecision makingGlasgow Outcome Scalesurgery

Identifiers

PMID30932784
PMCPMC6485298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.