BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reliability of hematoma volume (HV) measurement using the ABC/2 method in multicenter clinical trials is unknown. We determined the accuracy of ABC/2 method as an on-site test in comparison with the gold standard central HV-assessment and semiautomatic HV-assessment. Method- We analyzed data from an acute intracerebral hemorrhage multicenter clinical trial. HV was measured by site investigators to determine enrollment eligibility (<60 cm(3)) using the ABC/2 method (on-site HV), and independently by the core-imaging laboratory using computer-based analysis (Medical Image Processing, Analysis, and Visualization [MIPAV] HV). HV was also measured by ABC/2 method (central HV) at the core-imaging laboratory to assess the difference in measurements between on-site (multiple raters with variable experiences) and central (single experienced rater) HVs. RESULTS: Fifty-six subjects were analyzed (mean age 62±15 years; 45% women). On-site HV values showed a significantly lower correlation with the MIPAV HV (r=0.63) than central HV and MIPAV HV (r=0.93) values. The correlation between on-site HV and central HV values was modest (r=0.51). A total of 73% of the central HVs were within 25% of the corresponding MIPAV HVs, whereas only 46% of the on-site HVs were within 25% of the corresponding MIPAV HVs (P<0.001). One protocol violation occurred as a result of inaccuracy of on-site HV measurement. CONCLUSIONS: On-site HV measurements showed high variability, but the impact on the eligibility determination was small. Centralized remeasurements of HVs with feedback to the sites may increase the reliability of the on-site HV measurements.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reliability of hematoma volume (HV) measurement using the ABC/2 method in multicenter clinical trials is unknown. We determined the accuracy of ABC/2 method as an on-site test in comparison with the gold standard central HV-assessment and semiautomatic HV-assessment. Method- We analyzed data from an acute intracerebral hemorrhage multicenter clinical trial. HV was measured by site investigators to determine enrollment eligibility (<60 cm(3)) using the ABC/2 method (on-site HV), and independently by the core-imaging laboratory using computer-based analysis (Medical Image Processing, Analysis, and Visualization [MIPAV] HV). HV was also measured by ABC/2 method (central HV) at the core-imaging laboratory to assess the difference in measurements between on-site (multiple raters with variable experiences) and central (single experienced rater) HVs. RESULTS: Fifty-six subjects were analyzed (mean age 62±15 years; 45% women). On-site HV values showed a significantly lower correlation with the MIPAV HV (r=0.63) than central HV and MIPAV HV (r=0.93) values. The correlation between on-site HV and central HV values was modest (r=0.51). A total of 73% of the central HVs were within 25% of the corresponding MIPAV HVs, whereas only 46% of the on-site HVs were within 25% of the corresponding MIPAV HVs (P<0.001). One protocol violation occurred as a result of inaccuracy of on-site HV measurement. CONCLUSIONS: On-site HV measurements showed high variability, but the impact on the eligibility determination was small. Centralized remeasurements of HVs with feedback to the sites may increase the reliability of the on-site HV measurements.
Authors: Hagen B Huttner; Thorsten Steiner; Marius Hartmann; Martin Köhrmann; Eric Juettler; Stephan Mueller; Johannes Wikner; Uta Meyding-Lamade; Peter Schramm; Stefan Schwab; Peter D Schellinger Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Kevin N Sheth; Tracy A Cushing; Lauren Wendell; Michael H Lev; Javier M Romero; Kristin Schwab; Eric E Smith; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Jorge Kawano-Castillo; Eric Ward; Andrea Elliott; Jeremy Wetzel; Amanda Hassler; Mark McDonald; Stephanie A Parker; Joancy Archeval-Lao; Chad Tremont; Chunyan Cai; Evan Pivalizza; Mohammad H Rahbar; James C Grotta Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Adnan I Qureshi; Shahram Majidi; Waqas I Gilani; Yuko Y Palesch; Renee Martin; Jill Novitzke; Salvador Cruz-Flores; Asad Ehtisham; Joshua N Goldstein; Jawad F Kirmani; Haitham M Hussein; M Fareed K Suri; Nauman Tariq Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Alastair J S Webb; Natalie L Ullman; Tim C Morgan; John Muschelli; Joshua Kornbluth; Issam A Awad; Stephen Mayo; Michael Rosenblum; Wendy Ziai; Mario Zuccarrello; Francois Aldrich; Sayona John; Sagi Harnof; George Lopez; William C Broaddus; Christine Wijman; Paul Vespa; Ross Bullock; Stephen J Haines; Salvador Cruz-Flores; Stan Tuhrim; Michael D Hill; Raj Narayan; Daniel F Hanley Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Kailash Krishnan; Siti F Mukhtar; James Lingard; Aimee Houlton; Elizabeth Walker; Tanya Jones; Nikola Sprigg; Lesley A Cala; Jennifer L Becker; Robert A Dineen; Panos Koumellis; Alessandro Adami; Ana M Casado; Philip M W Bath; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: John Muschelli; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Natalie L Ullman; Paul Vespa; Daniel F Hanley; Ciprian M Crainiceanu Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Matthew F Sharrock; W Andrew Mould; Hasan Ali; Meghan Hildreth; Issam A Awad; Daniel F Hanley; John Muschelli Journal: Neuroinformatics Date: 2020-09-27