Trial reportBrain and behavior2024
Total intracranial hemorrhage volume measurement summating all compartments best in traumatic and nontraumatic intracranial bleeding.
Trial report in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Total intracranial hemorrhage volume measurement summating all compartments best in traumatic and nontraumatic intracranial bleeding.Brain and behavior · 2024Trial
- A Standardized Anatomical Classification of Intracranial Hemorrhage.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Initial intraventricular involvement and early intracerebral hematoma retraction: The "ventricular washout".European stroke journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe ANNEXA-4 trial measured hemostatic efficacy of andexanet alfa in patients with major bleeding taking factor Xa inhibitors. A proportion of this was traumatic and nontraumatic intracranial bleeding. Different measurements were applied in the trial including volumetrics to assess for intracranial bleeding depending on the compartment involved. We aimed to determine the most reliable way to measure intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) volume by comparing individual brain compartment and total ICrH volume.
methodsThirty patients were randomly selected from the ANNEXA-4 database to assess measurement of ICrH volume by compartment and in total. Total and compartmental hemorrhage volumes were measured by five readers using Quantomo software. Each reader measured baseline hemorrhage volumes twice separated by 1 week. Twenty-eight different ANNEXA-4 subjects were also randomly selected to assess intra-rater reliability of total ICrH volume measurement change at baseline and 12-h follow up, performed by three readers twice to assess hemostatic efficacy categories used in ANNEXA-4.
resultsCompartmental minimal detectable change percentages (MDC%) ranged between 9.72 and 224.13, with the greatest measurement error occurring in patients with a subdural hemorrhage. Total ICrH volume measurements had the lowest MDC%, which ranged between 6.57 and 33.52 depending on the reader.
conclusionMeasurement of total ICrH volumes is more accurate than volume by compartment with less measurement error. Determination of hemostatic efficacy was consistent across readers, and within the same reader, as well as when compared to consensus read. Volumetric analysis of intracranial hemostatic efficacy is feasible and reliable when using total ICrH volumes.
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.