ArticleNeurosurgical review2021
Is using intracerebral hemorrhage scoring systems valid for mortality prediction in surgically treated patients?
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: A simple and accurate biomarker for the prognosis of patients with intracerebral bleeding, a study of 115 cases.Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
- Validation of the ICH score and ICH-GS in a Peruvian surgical cohort: a retrospective study.Neurosurgical review · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) scoring systems provide mortality and morbidity prediction, the actual mortality rates seem to be lower than those predicted by scoring systems in our clinical impression. To assess the validity of the ICH score and the Surgical Swedish ICH (SwICH) score, we retrospectively reviewed surgically treated ICH patients between 2012 and 2019. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables in predicting 30-day mortality. We identified 203 patients (mean ICH score 2.7; mean SwICH score 2.0). The actual 30-day mortality was 7%, which was significantly lower than those predicted by the ICH and the SwICH scores (55% and 16%, respectively; p < 0.001). Both scores were strongly correlated with the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge (correlation coefficient 0.97 and 0.98; critical value 0.81). The only significant prognostic factors for the 30-day mortality by multivariate analysis were anisocoria (p = 0.03) and preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale (p = 0.03). These two factors also predicted mRS at discharge (p < 0.001). After discharge, 15% of patients improved regarding mRS and 29% of wheelchair-bound patients gained the ability to ambulate. No significant relationship existed between the degree of recovery after discharge and preoperative ICH score (p = 0.25). The ICH and SwICH scores were more valid in predicting morbidity, rather than mortality after surgical intervention for ICH. Anisocoria and Glasgow Coma Scale < 7 were the only two factors that predicted 30-day mortality and morbidity at discharge.
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.