Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40563756›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2025

Tissue Is the Issue: A Systematic Review of Methods for the Determination of Infarct Volume in Acute Ischaemic Stroke.

Fatimah Al Ahmed, Patrick Kennelly, Darragh Herlihy, Jorin Bejleri, David J Williams, John J Thornton, Shona Pfeiffer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

7 authors.

Fatimah Al AhmedSchool of Medicine, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.
Patrick KennellySchool of Medicine, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2316-8247
Darragh HerlihyDepartment of Neuroradiology, Beaumont Hospital, D09 V2N0 Dublin, Ireland.
Jorin BejleriDepartment Geriatric & Stroke Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, D09 YD60 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-8186-4075
David J WilliamsDepartment Geriatric & Stroke Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, D09 YD60 Dublin, Ireland.
John J ThorntonDepartment of Neuroradiology, Beaumont Hospital, D09 V2N0 Dublin, Ireland.
Shona PfeifferDepartment of Physiology and Medical Physics, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-8728-1620

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsRecent advances in acute stroke interventions have highlighted the importance of accurate determination of infarct volume in the evaluation of acute stroke patients, carrying important prognostic and therapeutic implications for treatment planning, outcome prediction, and evaluation of the success of therapeutic interventions. However, there is no consensus on the methodologies employed to measure cerebral infarct volume. We aimed to assess the reproducibility and reliability of methods employed in the clinical determination of infarct volume in acute ischaemic stroke.

methodsWe carried out a systematic review of studies assessing methodologies for the determination of infarct volume in the acute phase (<24 h). We searched Medline PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase for studies examining image-based diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke < 24 h by CT or MRI. Data on patient cohorts, imaging type, time from symptoms onset, methodologies and quantification strategies, rater reliability, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were compared.

resultsWe identified eighteen eligible studies with a total of 3298 ischaemic stroke patients assessing a variety of manual, semi-automated, and fully-automated methods. The ABC/2 method was found to be highly reliable, reproducible, and accurate, and provides the best manual estimate of infarction, but has a tendency to under- or overestimate infarct volume. Semi-automated and automated approaches with user refinement showed excellent inter-rater and intra-rater correlation. However, differences in operating algorithms and lack of standardisation of image acquisition parameters, quality, and format may impact performance and reproducibility.

conclusionsOf all methods, automated and semi-automated approaches utilising rater judgment and refinement represent the most robust approaches, with semi-automated tools demonstrating consistent and repeatable results. We recommend a standardised reporting of study methodologies for the accurate interpretation and comparison of efficacy of therapeutic interventions and patient outcomes, especially in a multi-centre setting. This may allow for more effective evaluation of stroke therapies and accelerate ischaemic stroke treatment decisions.

Indexed as

infarct measurementinfarct volumeischaemic strokenon-contrast computerised tomographystroke

Identifiers

PMID40563756
PMCPMC12190565

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.