Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42717488›Full record

ArticleEuropean stroke journal2026

Comparative external validation of ICH prognostic scores for discharge outcomes in the RES-Q multinational quality registry.

Ana Cláudia de Souza, Geraldo Neto, Nguyen Huy Thang, Nijasri C Suwanwela, Adin Nulkhasanah, Maria Epifania Collantes, Sheila Ouriques Martins, Sergii Moskovko, Mario A Munoz-Collazos, Louis Kroon and 9 more

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European stroke journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Ana Cláudia de SouzaDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Geraldo NetoStroke Research Program, International Clinical Research Center, St Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic.
Nguyen Huy ThangThe People's 115 Hospital Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Nijasri C SuwanwelaDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and Chulalongkorn Stroke Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Adin NulkhasanahClinical Research Unit, National Brain Center Hospital Mahar Mardjono Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Maria Epifania CollantesUniversity of the Philippines Manila College of Medicine, Philippine General Hospital, Manila, Philippines.
Sheila Ouriques MartinsDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Sergii MoskovkoNeurology Department, Vinnitsa National Pirogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnitsa, Ukraine.
Mario A Munoz-CollazosDepartment of Neurology, Marly Clinic, Bogotá, Colombia.
Louis KroonDepartment of Neurology, Steve Biko Academic Hospital, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Jeyaraj PandianDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab 141008, India.
Adam KobayashiDepartment of Neurology, Stroke and Vascular Diseases Institute of Medical Sciences Faculty of Medicine-Collegium Medicum Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Zuzana GdovinováDepartment of Neurology, P. J. Safarik University Kosice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital L. Pasteur, Kosice, Slovak Republic.
Natalia CiobanuInstitute of Emergency Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Nicolae Testemitanu, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova.
Francisco MonicheDepartment of Neurology, Stroke Unit, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen Del Rocío/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8613-2909
Cristina Tiu"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Rupal SedaniWorld Stroke Organization, Geneva, Switzerland and Health Management Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
Robert MikulíkHealth Management Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7458-5166
P N SylajaComprehensive Stroke Care Program, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostic scores are routinely applied after spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) to inform clinical decision-making and stratify risk; however, direct comparative validation in contemporary, multinational real-world cohorts remains scarce.

aimsTo compare the discriminative performance of the ICH Score, max-ICH and ICH Functional Outcome Score (ICH-FOS) for discharge outcomes after spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage in a large contemporary multinational cohort from the International Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q).

methodsWe analysed consecutive adults with spontaneous ICH recorded in RES-Q between September 2024 and April 2025. Discharge outcomes were defined according to the modified Rankin Scale (mRS): mortality (mRS = 6), unfavourable functional outcome (mRS ≥ 4) and composite poor outcome (mRS 5-6). Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals. Areas under the curve were compared in the same complete-case cohort using global tests and pairwise DeLong contrasts. Score distributions were characterised descriptively to explore differences in granularity.

resultsThe complete-case cohort comprised 8450 patients from 56 countries. Median age was 63 (20) years, and 62% were male. Median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 11 (12), Glasgow Coma Scale 14 (4) and median haematoma volume 16 (27) mL. Supratentorial ICH occurred in 82.1%, intraventricular haemorrhage in 31.5% and pre-admission oral anticoagulant use in 4.5%. Discharge mortality was 15.1% and favourable outcome (mRS 0-3) 56.6%. Discrimination was good for mortality (AUC 0.82 [0.81-0.83] for ICH Score, 0.81 [0.79-0.82] for max-ICH, 0.84 [0.83-0.86] for ICH-FOS; global P < .0001). For unfavourable outcome (mRS ≥ 4), AUCs were 0.77 (0.76-0.78), 0.81 (0.81-0.82) and 0.84 (0.83-0.85), respectively (P < .0001). For composite poor outcome (mRS 5-6), AUCs were 0.83 (0.82-0.84), 0.84 (0.83-0.85) and 0.87 (0.86-0.88) (P < .0001).

conclusionsIn this large, contemporary, multinational registry cohort, all 3 prognostic scores demonstrated acceptable-to-excellent discriminative ability for discharge outcomes following spontaneous ICH. ICH Functional Outcome Score consistently achieved the highest discriminative performance across all endpoints, whereas max-ICH provided a pragmatic and robust alternative based on routinely available clinical variables.

Indexed as

Cerebral HemorrhagePatient DischargeAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRegistriesexternal validationintracerebral haemorrhageoutcomesprognostic score

Identifiers

PMID42717488
PMCPMC13639101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.