Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31072174›Full record

ArticleJournal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism2020

Ischemic lesion growth in acute stroke: Water uptake quantification distinguishes between edema and tissue infarct.

Gabriel Broocks, Uta Hanning, Tobias D Faizy, Alexandra Scheibel, Jawed Nawabi, Gerhard Schön, Nils D Forkert, Soenke Langner, Jens Fiehler, Susanne Gellißen and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  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

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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriel BroocksDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Uta HanningDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Tobias D FaizyDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexandra ScheibelDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jawed NawabiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Gerhard SchönInstitute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Nils D ForkertDepartment of Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Soenke LangnerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Jens FiehlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Susanne GellißenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Andre KemmlingDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Luebeck, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity Hospital Münster · DEUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infarct growth from the early ischemic core to the total infarct lesion volume (LV) is often used as an outcome variable of treatment effects, but can be overestimated due to vasogenic edema. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess two components of early lesion growth by distinguishing between water uptake and true net infarct growth and (2) to investigate potential treatment effects on edema-corrected net lesion growth. Sixty-two M1-MCA-stroke patients with acute multimodal and follow-up CT (FCT) were included. Ischemic lesion growth was calculated by subtracting the initial CTP-derived ischemic core volume from the LV in the FCT. To determine edema-corrected net lesion growth, net water uptake of the ischemic lesion on FCT was quantified and subtracted from the volume of uncorrected lesion growth. The mean lesion growth without edema correction was 20.4 mL (95% CI: 8.2-32.5 mL). The mean net lesion growth after edema correction was 7.3 mL (95% CI: -2.1-16.7 mL;

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBrain EdemaBrain InfarctionCerebrovascular CirculationComputed Tomography AngiographyDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedStrokeWaterWaterbiomarkerscomputerized tomographyIschemiaischemic stroke

Identifiers

PMID31072174
PMCPMC7168794
OpenAlexW2944046489

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.