ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2020
A potential method of identifying stroke and other intracranial lesions in a prehospital setting.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardised data collection in prehospital critical care: a comparison of medical problem categories and discharge diagnoses.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2022Observational
- Design and validation of a new scale for prehospital evaluation of stroke and large vessel occlusion.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2022Article
- Etiology and clinical characteristics of patients with severely impaired consciousness in prehospital settings: A retrospective study.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying stroke and other intracranial lesions in patients with a decreased level of consciousness may be challenging in prehospital settings. Our objective was to investigate whether the combination of systolic blood pressure, heart rate and age could be used to identify intracranial lesions.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective case-control study including patients with a decreased level of consciousness who had their airway secured during prehospital care. Patients with intracranial lesions were identified based on the final diagnoses at the end of hospitalization. We investigated the ability of systolic blood pressure, heart rate and age to identify intracranial lesions and derived a decision instrument.
resultsOf 425 patients, 127 had an intracranial lesion. Patients with a lesion were characterized by higher systolic blood pressure, lower heart rate and higher age (P < 0.0001 for all). A systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg had an odds ratio (OR) of 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 7.0), and > 170 mmHg had an OR of 8.2 (95% CI 4.5-15.32) for an intracranial lesion (reference: < 140 mmHg). A heart rate < 100 beats/min had an OR of 3.4 (95% CI 2.0 to 6.0, reference: ≥100). Age 50-70 had an OR of 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 9.0), and > 70 years had an OR of 10.2 (95% CI 4.8 to 23.2), reference: < 50. Logarithms of ORs were rounded to the nearest integer to create a score with 0-2 points for age and blood pressure and 0-1 for heart rate, with an increasing risk for an intracranial lesion with higher scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the instrument was 0.810 (95% CI 0.850-0.890).
conclusionsAn instrument combining systolic blood pressure, heart rate and age may help identify stroke and other intracranial lesions in patients with a decreased level of consciousness in prehospital settings.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.