ArticleEuropean stroke journal2026
Comparative external validation of ICH prognostic scores for discharge outcomes in the RES-Q multinational quality registry.
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.
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
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
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.