Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37523199›Full record

ArticleJAMA neurology2023

Development and Validation of a Postprocedural Model to Predict Outcome After Endovascular Treatment for Ischemic Stroke.

Vicky Chalos, Esmee Venema, Maxim J H L Mulder, Bob Roozenbeek, Ewout W Steyerberg, Marieke J H Wermer, Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt, H Bart van der Worp, Mayank Goyal, Bruce C V Campbell and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Validation and simplification of the MR PREDICTS @24H model for outcome prediction after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  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

25 authors.

Vicky ChalosDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Esmee VenemaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maxim J H L MulderDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Bob RoozenbeekDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marieke J H WermerDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Geert J Lycklama À NijeholtDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, the Netherlands.
H Bart van der WorpDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mayank GoyalDepartments of Clinical Neuroscience and Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Bruce C V CampbellDepartment of Medicine and Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Keith W MuirInstitute of Neuroscience & Psychology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Francis GuilleminCHRU Nancy, Inserm, Université de Lorraine, CIC Clinical Epidemiology, Nancy, France.
Serge BracardDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University of Lorraine and University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
Philip WhiteTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Antoni DávalosDepartment of Neuroscience, Hospital Germans Trias y Pujol, Barcelona, Spain.
Tudor G JovinStroke Institute, Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, Presbyterian University Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Michael D HillDepartments of Clinical Neuroscience and Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Peter J MitchellDepartment of Radiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew M DemchukDepartments of Clinical Neuroscience and Radiology, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jeffrey L SaverDepartment of Neurology and Comprehensive Stroke Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Aad van der LugtDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Scott BrownAltair Biostatistics, Mooresville, North Carolina.
Diederik W J DippelDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
HERMES CollaboratorsMR CLEAN Registry Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Outcome prediction after endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke is important to patients, family members, and physicians. Objective: To develop and validate a model based on preprocedural and postprocedural characteristics to predict functional outcome for individual patients after EVT. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prediction model was developed using individual patient data from 7 randomized clinical trials, performed between December 2010 and December 2014. The model was developed within the Highly Effective Reperfusion Evaluated in Multiple Endovascular Stroke Trials (HERMES) collaboration and external validation in data from the Dutch Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry of patients treated in clinical practice between March 2014 and November 2017. Participants included patients from multiple centers throughout different countries in Europe, North America, East Asia, and Oceania (derivation cohort), and multiple centers in the Netherlands (validation cohort). Included were adult patients with a history of ischemic stroke from an intracranial large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who underwent EVT within 12 hours of symptom onset or last seen well. Data were last analyzed in July 2022. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): A total of 19 variables were assessed by multivariable ordinal regression to predict functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score) 90 days after EVT. Variables were routinely available 1 day after EVT. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to optimize model fit vs model complexity. Probabilities for functional independence (mRS 0-2) and survival (mRS 0-5) were derived from the ordinal model. Model performance was expressed with discrimination (C statistic) and calibration. Results: A total of 781 patients (median [IQR] age, 67 [57-76] years; 414 men [53%]) constituted the derivation cohort, and 3260 patients (median [IQR] age, 72 [61-80] years; 1684 men [52%]) composed the validation cohort. Nine variables were included in the model: age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, prestroke mRS score, history of diabetes, occlusion location, collateral score, reperfusion grade, NIHSS score at 24 hours, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage 24 hours after EVT. External validation in the MR CLEAN Registry showed excellent discriminative ability for functional independence (C statistic, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.92) and survival (0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90). The proportion of functional independence in the MR CLEAN Registry was systematically higher than predicted by the model (41% vs 34%), whereas observed and predicted survival were similar (72% vs 75%). The model was updated and implemented for clinical use. Conclusion and relevance: The prognostic tool MR PREDICTS@24H can be applied 1 day after EVT to accurately predict functional outcome for individual patients at 90 days and to provide reliable outcome expectations and personalize follow-up and rehabilitation plans. It will need further validation and updating for contemporary patients.

Identifiers

PMID37523199
PMCPMC10391355

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.