ArticleNeuroradiology2026
ABC/2 versus computer-assisted volumetric analysis for epidural hematoma: measurement variability, and the influence of hematoma morphology; a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAccurate estimation of epidural hematoma (EDH) volume is critical for clinical decision-making, as current traumatic brain injury guidelines recommend surgical evacuation for EDH volumes exceeding 30 cm³. The manual ABC/2 method is widely used for rapid estimation, but its accuracy for EDH remains incompletely defined. This study evaluated the accuracy of ABC/2 compared with computer-assisted volumetric analysis (CAVA) in a large, multicenter cohort.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on adult patients with traumatic EDH treated at two tertiary neurosurgical centers between 2017 and 2025. Hematoma volumes were calculated using the ABC/2 method and compared with CAVA using brainlab
resultsA total of 191 patients were included (mean age 40.0 ± 15.9 years). Bland-Altman analysis showed systematic overestimation by ABC/2 (mean bias - 13.45 mL) with wide limits of agreement. Log-transformed analysis confirmed substantial proportional variability (geometric mean ratio 0.72, 95% LoA 0.15-3.44), despite a strong overall correlation (r = 0.897, p < 0.001). Overestimation was greater in classic than irregular hematomas (16 vs. 8 mL), and classification discordance occurred in 56 patients (29.3%), including 28 (14.7%) crossing the 30-mL threshold.
conclusionsAlthough the ABC/2 method provides a rapid, practical estimate of EDH volume, it systematically overestimates hematoma size compared with CAVA and shows substantial shape- and patient-level variability. The two methods are not interchangeable, and volumes near commonly referenced operative thresholds should be interpreted cautiously. As CAVA tools become increasingly accessible, future studies should evaluate how CAVA-based measurements correlate with clinical presentation, treatment decisions, and patient outcomes, and determine how historical volume thresholds translate to modern volumetric techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834221What 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.