Evaluating the predictive capabilities of haematoma expansion scores in patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a scoping review.
1. intracerebral hemorrhage
2. hematoma expansion
3. prediction scores
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 01 2019
21 01 2019
Historique:
entrez:
24
1
2019
pubmed:
24
1
2019
medline:
20
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients presenting with acute intracerebral haemorrhage are at a high risk of exhibiting haematoma expansion, a phenomenon that can significantly worsen long-term functioning. Numerous clinical and radiological factors are associated with expansion. In a bid to better select patients at increased risk of expanding, these factors have been collated together into clinical scores. Several clinical scores have been developed, but comparisons of diagnostic potential between these scores are limited and the frequency of use in clinical trial enrolment is unknown. To perform a scoping review of haematoma expansion scores and explore numerous factors such as the methodology of development and diagnostic capabilities. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched with assistance from an experienced information specialist. Eligible studies will involve adults presenting with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage who received baseline assessments, follow-up imaging and risk stratification through a haematoma expansion score. Reviewers will independently extract data from the included studies and will collect data on patient demographics and medical history, details on score development, diagnostic capabilities and usage proportions. Analysis of extracted data will focus on comparing the predictive capability of each score and similarities/differences in score development. The exact analysis technique will be dictated on the type of data extracted. Formal ethics is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30670520
pii: bmjopen-2018-024744
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024744
pmc: PMC6347899
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e024744Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Lancet. 2009 May 9;373(9675):1632-44
pubmed: 19427958
N Engl J Med. 2008 May 15;358(20):2127-37
pubmed: 18480205
Stroke. 2016 Mar;47(3):695-700
pubmed: 26846857
Lancet Neurol. 2008 May;7(5):391-9
pubmed: 18396107
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Apr;11(4):307-14
pubmed: 22405630
N Engl J Med. 2005 Feb 24;352(8):777-85
pubmed: 15728810
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):1072-5
pubmed: 17290026
Stroke. 2015 Feb;46(2):376-81
pubmed: 25503550
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Jan;11(1):101-18
pubmed: 22172625
Stroke. 2015 Nov;46(11):3105-10
pubmed: 26463691
Stroke. 2017 Apr;48(4):1120-1125
pubmed: 28289239
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 15;375(11):1033-43
pubmed: 27276234
Neurocrit Care. 2015 Oct;23(2):179-87
pubmed: 25963292
Lancet. 2018 May 26;391(10135):2107-2115
pubmed: 29778325
Neurology. 2011 Apr 5;76(14):1238-44
pubmed: 21346218