Terence J Quinn1, Sarjit Singh2, Kennedy R Lees2, Philip M Bath2, Phyo K Myint. 1. From the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences (T.J.Q., K.R.L.) and Undergraduate Medical School (S.S.), University of Glasgow; Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience (P.M.B.), University of Nottingham; and School of Medicine (P.K.M.), Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK. Terry.Quinn@glasgow.ac.uk. 2. From the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences (T.J.Q., K.R.L.) and Undergraduate Medical School (S.S.), University of Glasgow; Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience (P.M.B.), University of Nottingham; and School of Medicine (P.K.M.), Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic accuracy of various acute stroke prognostic scales using a large, independent, clinical trials dataset. METHODS: We directly compared 8 stroke prognostic scales, chosen based on focused literature review (Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne [ASTRAL]; iSCORE; iSCORE-revised; preadmission comorbidities, level of consciousness, age, and neurologic deficit [PLAN]; stroke subtype, Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project, age, and prestroke modified Rankin Scale [mRS] [SOAR]; modified SOAR; Stroke Prognosis Instrument 2 [SPI2]; and Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events [THRIVE]) using individual patient-level data from a clinical trials archive (Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive [VISTA]). We calculated area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) for each scale against 90-day outcomes of mRS (dichotomized at mRS >2), Barthel Index (>85), and mortality. We performed 2 complementary analyses: the first limited to patients with complete data for all components of all scales (simultaneous) and the second using as many patients as possible for each individual scale (separate). We compared AUROCs and performed sensitivity analyses substituting extreme outcome values for missing data. RESULTS: In total, 10,777 patients contributed to the analyses. Our simultaneous analyses suggested that ASTRAL had greatest prognostic accuracy for mRS, AUROC 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.82), and SPI2 had poorest AUROC, 0.61 (95% CI 0.57-0.66). Our separate analyses confirmed these results: ASTRAL AUROC 0.79 (95% CI 0.78-0.80 and SPI2 AUROC 0.60 (95% CI 0.59-0.61). On formal comparative testing, there was a significant difference in modified Rankin Scale AUROC between ASTRAL and all other scales. Sensitivity analysis identified no evidence of systematic bias from missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analyses confirm differences in the prognostic accuracy of stroke scales. However, even the best performing scale had prognostic accuracy that may not be sufficient as a basis for clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic accuracy of various acute stroke prognostic scales using a large, independent, clinical trials dataset. METHODS: We directly compared 8 stroke prognostic scales, chosen based on focused literature review (Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne [ASTRAL]; iSCORE; iSCORE-revised; preadmission comorbidities, level of consciousness, age, and neurologic deficit [PLAN]; stroke subtype, Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project, age, and prestroke modified Rankin Scale [mRS] [SOAR]; modified SOAR; Stroke Prognosis Instrument 2 [SPI2]; and Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events [THRIVE]) using individual patient-level data from a clinical trials archive (Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive [VISTA]). We calculated area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) for each scale against 90-day outcomes of mRS (dichotomized at mRS >2), Barthel Index (>85), and mortality. We performed 2 complementary analyses: the first limited to patients with complete data for all components of all scales (simultaneous) and the second using as many patients as possible for each individual scale (separate). We compared AUROCs and performed sensitivity analyses substituting extreme outcome values for missing data. RESULTS: In total, 10,777 patients contributed to the analyses. Our simultaneous analyses suggested that ASTRAL had greatest prognostic accuracy for mRS, AUROC 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.82), and SPI2 had poorest AUROC, 0.61 (95% CI 0.57-0.66). Our separate analyses confirmed these results: ASTRAL AUROC 0.79 (95% CI 0.78-0.80 and SPI2 AUROC 0.60 (95% CI 0.59-0.61). On formal comparative testing, there was a significant difference in modified Rankin Scale AUROC between ASTRAL and all other scales. Sensitivity analysis identified no evidence of systematic bias from missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analyses confirm differences in the prognostic accuracy of stroke scales. However, even the best performing scale had prognostic accuracy that may not be sufficient as a basis for clinical decision-making.
Authors: Terence J Quinn; Edo Richard; Yvonne Teuschl; Thomas Gattringer; Melanie Hafdi; John T O'Brien; Niamh Merriman; Celine Gillebert; Hanne Huyglier; Ana Verdelho; Reinhold Schmidt; Emma Ghaziani; Hysse Forchammer; Sarah T Pendlebury; Rose Bruffaerts; Milija Mijajlovic; Bogna A Drozdowska; Emily Ball; Hugh S Markus Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-10-08
Authors: Anna K Bonkhoff; Sungmin Hong; Martin Bretzner; Markus D Schirmer; Robert W Regenhardt; E Murat Arsava; Kathleen Donahue; Marco Nardin; Adrian Dalca; Anne-Katrin Giese; Mark R Etherton; Brandon L Hancock; Steven J T Mocking; Elissa McIntosh; John Attia; Oscar Benavente; John W Cole; Amanda Donatti; Christoph Griessenauer; Laura Heitsch; Lukas Holmegaard; Katarina Jood; Jordi Jimenez-Conde; Steven Kittner; Robin Lemmens; Christopher Levi; Caitrin W McDonough; James Meschia; Chia-Ling Phuah; Arndt Rolfs; Stefan Ropele; Jonathan Rosand; Jaume Roquer; Tatjana Rundek; Ralph L Sacco; Reinhold Schmidt; Pankaj Sharma; Agnieszka Slowik; Martin Soederholm; Alessandro Sousa; Tara M Stanne; Daniel Strbian; Turgut Tatlisumak; Vincent Thijs; Achala Vagal; Johan Wasselius; Daniel Woo; Ramin Zand; Patrick McArdle; Bradford B Worrall; Christina Jern; Arne G Lindgren; Jane Maguire; Polina Golland; Danilo Bzdok; Ona Wu; Natalia S Rost Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: S Nannoni; F Ricciardi; D Strambo; G Sirimarco; M Wintermark; V Dunet; P Michel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B Jiang; G Zhu; Y Xie; J J Heit; H Chen; Y Li; V Ding; A Eskandari; P Michel; G Zaharchuk; M Wintermark Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kimberly S Erler; Rui Wu; Julie A DiCarlo; Marina F Petrilli; Perman Gochyyev; Leigh R Hochberg; Steven A Kautz; Lee H Schwamm; Steven C Cramer; Seth P Finklestein; David J Lin Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Antonio Di Carlo; Maria Lamassa; Marco Franceschini; Francesca Bovis; Lorenzo Cecconi; Sanaz Pournajaf; Stefano Paravati; Annibale Biggeri; Domenico Inzitari; Salvatore Ferro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katja E Wartenberg; David Y Hwang; Karl Georg Haeusler; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Oliver W Sakowitz; Dominik Madžar; Hajo M Hamer; Alejandro A Rabinstein; David M Greer; J Claude Hemphill; Juergen Meixensberger; Panayiotis N Varelas Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.210