ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2020
Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for antithrombotic-related chronic subdural hematoma in patients with recent acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Middle meningeal artery embolization in chronic subdural hematoma: bridging surgical innovations and molecular mechanisms.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Frailty as a predictor of poor outcomes in patients with chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH): A systematic review of literature.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntithrombotic therapy is a cornerstone of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment and is thought to be associated with an increased risk of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). However, no well-established model exists to predict subsequent antithrombotic treatment outcomes after CSDH in patients with recent AMI. We aimed to identify a prognostic model to predict the 6-month outcome of treatment with antithrombotic therapy.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective analysis involved 553 patients with recent AMI with antithrombotic-related CSDH. Several candidate clinical variables and biomarkers were examined in the training cohort (Chengdu training cohort; n=368). Patients with unfavorable outcomes had experienced at least 1 of the following: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), recurrence, or a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 2 to 6. To develop a 6-month outcome prediction model, three approaches were used: (I) a demographic variable model, (II) a clinical marker model and (III) a decision-driven model. A clinical outcome prediction model based on the superior predictors was assessed by logistic regression analysis. The nomogram for the final model was internally validated using a bootstrap procedure and externally validated in an independent cohort (Anhui cohort; n=185).
resultsModel A produced 7 predictors of unfavorable outcomes, while models B and C yielded 2 and 1 predictors, respectively. The areas under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.743 [model A; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.680-0.782] to 0.889 (model A + B + C; 95% CI: 0.851-0.916). The final prediction model included age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the early resumption of antithrombotic therapy, hematoma thickness and the presence of abdominal obesity, frailty and previous bleeding. Internal and external validation of the selected final model revealed adequate C-statistics and calibration slope values (internal validation: 0.81 and 0.78; external validation: 0.80 and 0.76, respectively).
conclusionsThis model provided a risk stratification tool to predict unfavorable outcomes in patients with recent AMI with antithrombotic-related CSDH. Because the study was based on ten readily practical and available variables, it may be widely applicable to guide management and complement clinical assessment.
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.