ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Controlled Nutritional Status Score and Prognostic Nutritional Index for the Prediction of Postoperative Subdural Hematoma.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the predictive value of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and controlled nutritional status score (CONUT) on the neurological outcomes of patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) following burr-hole drainage. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with CSDH was conducted. The CONUT and PNI values and the modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores were calculated based on the patients' conditions at the time of hospital discharge. The poor prognosis was defined as an mRS score of 3. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to evaluate the predictive value of CONUT and PNI for the postoperative prognosis of CSDH. Nutritional risk was defined using established cutoffs: PNI < 45 and CONUT ≥ 2. Results: In 205 patients with CSDH, 17 patients (8.3%) had a poor prognosis. On ROC curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for the CONUT in predicting poor prognosis of CSDH was 0.719 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.5867-0.8523, P=0.002). The AUC for the PNI and combined CONUT and PNI were 0.803 (95% CI: 0.7031-0.9042, P<0.001) and 0.805 (95% CI: 0.7039-0.9059, P<0.001), respectively. Moreover, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that CONUT (OR=1.485, 95% CI: 1.096-2.011) and PNI (OR=0.850, 95% CI: 0.763-0.947) were independent risk factors for poor prognosis of CSDH following surgical intervention, after adjusting for age, hypertension, and pre-discharge intracranial fluid volume. Conclusion: The combined score of PNI and CONUT displayed higher sensitivity and specificity, compared to PNI or CONUT alone. Therefore, the combined score might be useful in predicting the prognosis of CSDH.
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.