GuidelineNeurocritical care2026
Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Critically ill Adults with Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Guideline in Neurocritical care, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) may require intensive care unit admission for several reasons, including post-procedural care, management of large hemispheric infarction, and cardiopulmonary instability. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations on the reliability of select individual predictors of outcome, and multivariate prediction models, in the context of counseling critically ill patients with AIS and their surrogates. In addition, broad principles of neuroprognostication in this population were identified.
methodsA narrative systematic review was completed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected on the basis of clinical relevance and the presence of an appropriate body of evidence. The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome/Timing/Setting (PICOTS) question was framed as follows: "When counseling critically ill adults with AIS or their surrogates, should <predictor> be considered a reliable predictor of poor functional outcome at 3 months or later?" Recommendations were based on quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use. Recommendations that met GRADE criteria for good practice statements addressed broad principles of neuroprognostication.
resultsA total of 518 articles met eligibility criteria to guide recommendations. Good practice recommendations include avoiding premature neuroprognostication, avoiding confounders, the use of multimodal assessment, predicting recovery of swallow function, predicting tracheostomy decannulation, and counseling of patients with large hemispheric infarction and their surrogates prior to neurological decline. Early neurological improvement within 24 h of revascularization was identified as a moderately reliable predictor of good functional outcome. No other individual predictor was considered reliable for the prediction of mortality or functional outcome.
conclusionsThese guidelines suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication and provide recommendations on the reliability of predictors of functional outcome in the context of counseling critically ill patients with AIS and their surrogates.
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.