ArticleNeurological research and practice2021
Probability assessment of intracerebral hemorrhage in prehospital emergency patients.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- DIAGnosis using NOvel technology for Subtypes In Stroke (DIAGNOSIS study): performance evaluation protocol.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Systematic Review of Prehospital Prediction Models for Identifying Intracerebral Haemorrhage in Suspected Stroke Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prehospital scale to differentiate intracerebral hemorrhage from large-vessel occlusion patients: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integrating clinical predictors and glial fibrillary acidic protein in prediction models for the prehospital identification of intracerebral haemorrhage in suspected stroke.BMJ neurology open · 2025Article
- Prehospital identification of intracerebral haemorrhage: a scoping review of early clinical features and portable devices.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Physiological Variability during Prehospital Stroke Care: Which Monitoring and Interventions Are Used?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Development and internal validation of prehospital prediction models for identifying intracerebral haemorrhage in suspected stroke patients.BMJ neurology open · 2024Article
- Clinical features and novel technologies for prehospital detection of intracerebral haemorrhage: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRouting of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and acute ischemic stroke (AIS) to the most appropriate hospital is challenging for emergency medical services particularly when specific treatment options are only provided by specialized hospitals and determination of the exact diagnosis is difficult. We aimed to develop a prehospital score - called prehospital-intracerebral hemorrhage score (ph-ICH score) - to assist in discriminating between both conditions.
methodsThe ph-ICH score was developed with data from patients treated aboard a mobile stroke unit in Berlin, Germany, between 2011 and 2013 (derivation cohort) and in 2018 (validation cohort). Diagnosis of ICH or AIS was established using clinical data and neuroradiological cerebral imaging. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with significance testing, Cohen's d and receiver-operating-characteristics.
resultsWe analyzed 416 patients (32 ICH, 224 AIS, 41 transient ischemic attack, 119 stroke mimic) in the derivation cohort and 285 patients (33 ICH and 252 AIS) in the validation cohort. Systolic blood pressure, level of consciousness and severity of neurological deficits (i. e. certain items of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) were used to calculate the ph-ICH score that showed higher values in the ICH compared to the AIS group (derivation cohort: 1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 1.0 ± 0.9 points; validation cohort: 1.8 ± 0.9 vs. 0.8 ± 0.7 points; d = 0.9 and 1.4, both p < 0.01). Receiver-operating-characteristics showed fair and good accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.71 for the derivation and 0.81 for the validation cohort.
conclusionsThe ph-ICH score can assist medical personnel in the field to assess the likelihood of ICH and AIS in emergency patients.
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.