ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2023
Development and Validation of a Clinical-Based Severity Scale for Patients with Cerebral Venous Thrombosis.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: Pathophysiologic Insights, Clinical Evaluation Tools, and Novel Therapeutic Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare subtype of stroke. However, existing scales were insufficient to evaluate the overall severity of CVT. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a CVT severity scale. Methods: Items 1-11 were directly derived from NIHSS. New items were generated from a literature review and focus group discussion. A total of 170 CVT patients were prospectively recruited from 26 top tertiary hospitals in China Mainland from January 2021 to May 2022 to validate the CVT severity scale. The CVT severity scale, NIHSS, mRS and GCS were rated at admission. The lumbar puncture opening pressure was also recorded. Twenty randomly selected CVT patients were rated with the CVT severity scale again 24 hours later. The clinical outcome of CVT was evaluated by mRS at 6 months after baseline. Results: We successfully established a CVT severity scale with 18 items. Exploratory factor analysis showed that 18 items were attributed to factor 1 (focal neurological deficits), factor 2 (diffuse encephalopathy), factor 3 (intracranial hypertension) and factor 4 (cavernous sinus syndrome). CVT severity scale was positively correlated with ICP, NIHSS and mRS, and negatively correlated with GCS at baseline. CVT severity scale >3 or factor 3 >2 indicated intracranial hypertension. CVT severity scale >10 indicated poor clinical outcome at 6 months of follow-up. Meanwhile, CVT severity scale showed high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Conclusion: The CVT severity scale included 18 items encompassing 4 domains of focal neurological deficits, diffuse encephalopathy, IH and cavernous sinus syndrome. CVT severity scale correlated well with ICP, NIHSS, mRS and GCS. Patients with CVT severity scale >10 can be defined as severe CVT. The CVT severity scale may serve as a valid and reliable tool for measuring the overall severity of CVT.
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.