ArticleEuropean stroke journal2024
Is the frequency of imaging markers still a predictor for revised intracerebral hemorrhage expansion?
Article in European stroke journal, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFrequency of imaging markers (FIM) has been described as a novel predictor for hematoma expansion after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). A revised definition of hematoma expansion that incorporates intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) growth, that is, revised hematoma expansion (RHE), has also been proposed. Nevertheless, the associations between FIM and IVH growth or RHE remains unexplored. The objective of this study was to assess the influence and performance of the FIM on two types. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatient selection and variables were based on our published protocol. FIM was defined as the ratio of the number of imaging markers to the onset-to-neuroimaging time. The association between FIM and two definitions was tested by multivariate analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the FIM on two definitions were also evaluated.
resultsThere were 303 (20.36%) and 583 (39.18%) subjects in the IVH growth and RHE, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that FIM was associated with both IVH growth and RHE (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.60-2.39; OR = 15.01, 95% CI = 10.51-21.43, respectively). The optimal cutoff points for FIM to predict IVH growth and RHE were 0.63 and 0.62, with AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.66, 0.50, 0.78, 0.36, and 0.86 versus 0.80, 0.60, 0.93, 0.84, and 0.78, respectively. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionFIM was not only a predictor of IVH growth, but also of RHE. These findings may have important clinical implications for decision-making based on risk stratification of patients with ICH.
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.