BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models can enhance clinical decision-making and research. However, available prediction models in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) are rarely used. We evaluated the methodological validity of SAH prediction models and the relevance of the main predictors to identify potentially reliable models and to guide future attempts at model development. METHODS: We searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases from January 1995 to June 2012 to identify studies that reported clinical prediction models for mortality and functional outcome in aSAH. Validated methods were used to minimize bias. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified; 3 developed models from datasets of phase 3 clinical trials, the others from single hospital records. The median patient sample size was 340 (interquartile range 149-733). The main predictors used were age (n = 8), Fisher grade (n = 6), World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade (n = 5), aneurysm size (n = 5), and Hunt and Hess grade (n = 3). Age was consistently dichotomized. Potential predictors were prescreened by univariate analysis in 36 % of studies. Only one study was penalized for model optimism. Details about model development were often insufficiently described and no published studies provided external validation. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical prediction models for aSAH use a few simple predictors, there are substantial methodological problems with the models and none have had external validation. This precludes the use of existing models for clinical or research purposes. We recommend further studies to develop and validate reliable clinical prediction models for aSAH.
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models can enhance clinical decision-making and research. However, available prediction models in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) are rarely used. We evaluated the methodological validity of SAH prediction models and the relevance of the main predictors to identify potentially reliable models and to guide future attempts at model development. METHODS: We searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases from January 1995 to June 2012 to identify studies that reported clinical prediction models for mortality and functional outcome in aSAH. Validated methods were used to minimize bias. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified; 3 developed models from datasets of phase 3 clinical trials, the others from single hospital records. The median patient sample size was 340 (interquartile range 149-733). The main predictors used were age (n = 8), Fisher grade (n = 6), World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade (n = 5), aneurysm size (n = 5), and Hunt and Hess grade (n = 3). Age was consistently dichotomized. Potential predictors were prescreened by univariate analysis in 36 % of studies. Only one study was penalized for model optimism. Details about model development were often insufficiently described and no published studies provided external validation. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical prediction models for aSAH use a few simple predictors, there are substantial methodological problems with the models and none have had external validation. This precludes the use of existing models for clinical or research purposes. We recommend further studies to develop and validate reliable clinical prediction models for aSAH.
Authors: Jennifer A Frontera; Jan Claassen; J Michael Schmidt; Katja E Wartenberg; Richard Temes; E Sander Connolly; R Loch MacDonald; Stephan A Mayer Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: R Risselada; H F Lingsma; A Bauer-Mehren; C M Friedrich; A J Molyneux; R S C Kerr; J Yarnold; M Sneade; E W Steyerberg; M C J M Sturkenboom Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2010-02-14 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Daniel W Zumofen; Michel Roethlisberger; Rita Achermann; Schatlo Bawarjan; Martin N Stienen; Christian Fung; Donato D'Alonzo; Nicolai Maldaner; Andrea Ferrari; Marco V Corniola; Daniel Schoeni; Johannes Goldberg; Daniele Valsecchi; Thomas Robert; Rodolfo Maduri; Martin Seule; Jan-Karl Burkhardt; Serge Marbacher; Philippe Bijlenga; Kristine A Blackham; Heiner C Bucher; Luigi Mariani; Raphael Guzman Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Christian Rubbert; Kaustubh R Patil; Kerim Beseoglu; Christian Mathys; Rebecca May; Marius G Kaschner; Benjamin Sigl; Nikolas A Teichert; Johannes Boos; Bernd Turowski; Julian Caspers Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: W E van der Steen; H A Marquering; L A Ramos; R van den Berg; B A Coert; A M M Boers; M D I Vergouwen; G J E Rinkel; B K Velthuis; Y B W E M Roos; C B L M Majoie; W P Vandertop; D Verbaan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ben Gaastra; Dianxu Ren; Sheila Alexander; Ellen R Bennett; Dawn M Bielawski; Spiros L Blackburn; Mark K Borsody; Sylvain Doré; James Galea; Patrick Garland; Tian He; Koji Iihara; Yoichiro Kawamura; Jenna L Leclerc; James F Meschia; Michael A Pizzi; Rafael J Tamargo; Wuyang Yang; Paul A Nyquist; Diederik O Bulters; Ian Galea Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: R Loch Macdonald; Blessing Jaja; Michael D Cusimano; Nima Etminan; Daniel Hanggi; David Hasan; Don Ilodigwe; Hector Lantigua; Peter Le Roux; Benjamin Lo; Ada Louffat-Olivares; Stephan Mayer; Andrew Molyneux; Audrey Quinn; Tom A Schweizer; Thomas Schenk; Julian Spears; Michael Todd; James Torner; Mervyn D I Vergouwen; George K C Wong; Jeff Singh Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Joseph R Geraghty; Melissa N Lara-Angulo; Milen Spegar; Jenna Reeh; Fernando D Testai Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2020-06-20 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Sean N Neifert; Emily K Chapman; Michael L Martini; William H Shuman; Alexander J Schupper; Eric K Oermann; J Mocco; R Loch Macdonald Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 6.829