ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Validation of HATCH score to predict neurological outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in a Latin American middle-income country.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To externally validate the HATCH score for predicting 6-month neurological outcomes in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in a multicenter Latin American cohort, and to compare its performance with the Hunt-Hess and WFNS scales. Retrospective study across three Argentine hospitals (2011-2024). Adults with aSAH admitted to the ICU were included. The primary outcome was 6-month functional status (mRS 0-3 vs. 4-6); the secondary outcome was 12-month mortality. Discrimination was assessed with AUROC (DeLong test), and calibration with calibration-in-the-large (CITL) and slope, using risks from original derivations. 177 patients were analyzed; 57% achieved a favorable 6-month outcome. Discrimination for 6-month mRS was comparable: AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.73-0.86) for HATCH, 0.79 (0.72-0.86) for Hunt-Hess, and 0.81 (0.74-0.87) for WFNS (p = 0.44). Calibration differed: HATCH had good agreement across probabilities (slope 0.94 [0.64-1.24]) with mild underprediction (CITL 0.61 [0.26-0.96]); Hunt-Hess overpredicted (CITL - 0.58 [- 0.94 to - 0.24]) with poor agreement (slope 0.47 [0.32-0.62]); WFNS showed good agreement (slope 1.19 [0.84-1.54]) but systematic underprediction (CITL 1.62 [1.28-1.96]). At 12 months, discrimination for mortality was moderate: AUROC 0.72 (0.64-0.79) for HATCH, 0.69 (0.61-0.77) for Hunt-Hess, and 0.73 (0.66-0.81) for WFNS (p = 0.12). Calibration favored WFNS (slope 0.87 [0.52-1.23]; CITL 0.74 [0.37-1.11]); HATCH showed slope 0.55 (0.28-0.83) and CITL - 0.36 (- 0.75 to 0.03); Hunt-Hess was substantially miscalibrated. In this multicenter Latin American external validation, HATCH provided the most balanced performance for 6-month functional outcome; for 12-month mortality, all scores showed only moderate discrimination, with WFNS calibrating most stably.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42613490What 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.