ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Cerebral Vasospasm Detection and Delayed Cerebral Ischemia Prediction after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Scoping Review.
Article 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveAneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is complicated by angiographic cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), distinct entities with different reference standards and surveillance targets. We mapped the evidence on (1) diagnostic accuracy of vasospasm monitoring tools using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard and (2) detection and prediction of DCI using the 2010 consensus definition.
methodsWe performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)-guided scoping review of PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and PubMed Central (1 January 2005-31 January 2025). Vasospasm studies required DSA as comparator; DCI studies were categorized by outcome definition (2010 consensus vs. alternative definitions). Methodological quality was assessed with QUADAS-2 (diagnostic accuracy) and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST; prediction models).
resultsFrom 762 records, 136 studies met inclusion criteria. For vasospasm detection (DSA reference), transcranial Doppler (18 studies; n = 3256) demonstrated sensitivity 66% (60-72) and specificity 97% (95-99), while computed tomography angiography (CTA) (15 studies; n = 2145) showed sensitivity 76% (72-80) and specificity 93% (91-95). For DCI detection (2010 consensus), CT perfusion (30 studies; n = 1786) yielded sensitivity 86% (78-86) and specificity 80% (75-85) with substantial protocol heterogeneity; continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) (8 studies; n = 523) achieved sensitivity 88% (80-94) and specificity 89% (83-93). Across 84 DCI predictor studies, machine-learning models (23 models) outperformed traditional risk factors (area under the curve [AUC] 0.68-0.88 vs. ~0.63), but only 44% underwent independent validation, and 67% were at high risk of bias.
conclusionsThe evidence supports a two-track framework: DSA-referenced tools for vasospasm detection and consensus-defined markers for DCI detection/prediction. Multimodal strategies integrating physiologic and imaging data are most promising, whereas machine-learning approaches require prospective, externally validated evaluations before routine clinical deployment.
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.