ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Identifying High-Risk Patients With Cerebral Venous Thrombosis for Early Intervention.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebral venous thrombosis presents with diverse clinical features, making early recognition of patients at risk for deterioration challenging. The cerebral venous thrombosis score was developed by our group and later renamed the CLOTS-EVT score as a mnemonic to facilitate recall and improve ease of clinical use. This 10-point tool, including decreased consciousness (C), low platelets and sodium (L), absence of oral contraceptive use (O), thrombosis burden >3 sinuses (T), seizure (S), and papilledema (E), was developed to predict early deterioration and guide timely venous thrombectomy. We aimed to externally validate this score.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed adults with cerebral venous thrombosis treated between 2015 and 2017 across 12 centers. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were collected, and the CLOTS-EVT score was applied to each patient. Predictive performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Correlation with functional outcome at discharge and hospital length of stay was assessed.
resultsEighty patients were analyzed (median age, 38.5 years; 66% female). Headache was the most common symptom; oral contraceptive use was reported in one-third of women. Additional risk factors included pregnancy (7.5%), central nervous system infection (1.25%), malignancy (6.25%), hereditary thrombophilia (3.75%), and smoking (15%). The transverse and sigmoid sinuses were most frequently involved. Anticoagulation was initiated in nearly all patients; 10% underwent endovascular therapy. Overall, 63.8% achieved favorable outcomes, 80% were discharged home, and mortality was 3.8%. In this cohort, 41.3% had decreased consciousness, 47.5% had sodium <139 mEq/L, 38.8% had platelets <225 000/μL, 68.75% were not using oral contraceptives, 25% had thrombosis in >3 sinuses, 20% had seizures, and 22.5% had papilledema. A CLOTS-EVT score ≥4 predicted early deterioration with 82% sensitivity, 61% specificity, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.718. Higher scores correlated with longer hospital stay (r=0.325) and worse functional outcome (r=0.363).
conclusionsThe CLOTS-EVT score demonstrated acceptable performance as a predictor of early deterioration in cerebral venous thrombosis. By combining standard clinical, laboratory, and imaging variables, it provides a practical tool for risk stratification and may inform consideration of venous thrombectomy alongside anticoagulation.
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.