Fatima Soliman1, Ajay Gupta1, Diana Delgado2, Hooman Kamel3, Ankur Pandya4. 1. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 2. Samuel J. Wood Library & C.V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Numerous stroke scales have been developed to predict functional outcomes following acute ischemic stroke. The goal of this study was to summarize functional outcome scores in stroke that incorporate neuroimaging with those that don't incorporate neuroimaging. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library Database from inception to January 23, 2015. Additional records were identified by employing the "Cited by" and "View References" features in Scopus. We included studies that described stroke prognosis models or scoring systems that predict functional outcome based on clinical and/or imaging data available on presentation. Score performance was evaluated based on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 3300 articles were screened, yielding 14 scores that met inclusion criteria. Half (7) of the scores included neuroimaging as a predictor variable. Neuroimaging parameters included infarct size on magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging, infarct size defined by computed tomography hypodensity, and hemodynamic abnormality on perfusion imaging. The modified Rankin Scale at 3 months poststroke was the most common functional outcome reported (13 of 14 scores). The AUCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.84 for scores that included neuroimaging as a predictor and 0.64 to 0.94 for scores that did not include neuroimaging. External validation has been performed for 7 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the marked heterogeneity in the scores and populations in which they were applied, it is unclear whether current imaging-based scores offer advantages over simpler approaches for predicting poststroke function.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Numerous stroke scales have been developed to predict functional outcomes following acute ischemic stroke. The goal of this study was to summarize functional outcome scores in stroke that incorporate neuroimaging with those that don't incorporate neuroimaging. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library Database from inception to January 23, 2015. Additional records were identified by employing the "Cited by" and "View References" features in Scopus. We included studies that described stroke prognosis models or scoring systems that predict functional outcome based on clinical and/or imaging data available on presentation. Score performance was evaluated based on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 3300 articles were screened, yielding 14 scores that met inclusion criteria. Half (7) of the scores included neuroimaging as a predictor variable. Neuroimaging parameters included infarct size on magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging, infarct size defined by computed tomography hypodensity, and hemodynamic abnormality on perfusion imaging. The modified Rankin Scale at 3 months poststroke was the most common functional outcome reported (13 of 14 scores). The AUCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.84 for scores that included neuroimaging as a predictor and 0.64 to 0.94 for scores that did not include neuroimaging. External validation has been performed for 7 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the marked heterogeneity in the scores and populations in which they were applied, it is unclear whether current imaging-based scores offer advantages over simpler approaches for predicting poststroke function.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S De Raedt; R Brouns; A De Smedt; M J H Aries; M Uyttenboogaart; G J Luijckx; J De Keyser Journal: Clin Neurol Neurosurg Date: 2012-09-08 Impact factor: 1.876
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