Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40330250›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025

Predictors of poor outcomes in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.

Liling Zeng, Qixin Zhang, Zhangyong Xia, Wanzhen Cui, Jianwen Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Liling ZengDepartment of Neurology and Statistics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Qixin ZhangZilkha Neurogenetic Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Zhangyong XiaDepartment of Neurology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, China.
Wanzhen CuiDepartment of Neurology and Statistics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jianwen GuoDepartment of Neurology and Statistics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To identify the predictors of 3-month outcomes in Chinese patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) receiving conservative management. Methods: From October 2013 to May 2016, a total of 5,589 individuals with ICH were screened as part of the CRRICH study (Clinical re-evaluation of removing blood stasis therapy in treating acute intracerebral hemorrhage). Of these, 319 patients were ultimately enrolled. This study constitutes a post analysis of the CRRICH study. Potential predictors of poor outcomes following spontaneous ICH, initially identified through univariate analysis, were further evaluated using an unconditional multiple logistic regression model. Poor outcomes were defined as a modified Rankin scale score > 2 at 90 days post-ICH. Results: Of the 319 patients (mean age 62.46 ± 0.71 years; male/female ratio 1.8:1), 89 (27.9%) had poor 3-month outcomes. Multivariable analysis showed increased odds of poor outcomes with older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.08; Conclusion: In conservatively treated ICH patients, right hemispheric involvement, ventricular hemorrhage, older age, and higher NIHSS score increased poor outcome risks at 3 months, while higher BMI and early admission reduced risks, aiding clinical prognosis prediction.

Indexed as

body mass indexCRRICH trialintracerebral hemorrhageoutcomepredictors

Identifiers

PMID40330250
PMCPMC12054252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.