MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for all relevant articles published before March 31, 2020, without any language restrictions. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a random-effects model using Stata 14.0 software. RESULT: A total of 24 eligible studies with 2812 CA patients were recruited in the meta-analysis. The pooled result showed that decreased GWR was correlated with poor neurological outcomes after CA (OR = 11.28, 95% CI: 6.29-20.21, and P < 0.001) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 71.5%, P < 0.001). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.47-0.68) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87-0.98), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of GWR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87). Compared with GWR (cerebrum) and GWR (average), GWR using the basal ganglion level of brain CT had the highest AUC of 0.87 (0.84-0.90). Subgroup analysis indicated that heterogeneity may be derived from the time of CT measurement, preset specificity, targeted temperature management, or proportion of cardiac etiology. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the result was stable, and Deeks' plot showed no possible publication bias (P = 0 .64). CONCLUSION: Current research suggests that GWR, especially using the basal ganglion level of brain CT, is a useful parameter for determining neurological outcomes after CA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for all relevant articles published before March 31, 2020, without any language restrictions. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a random-effects model using Stata 14.0 software. RESULT: A total of 24 eligible studies with 2812 CA patients were recruited in the meta-analysis. The pooled result showed that decreased GWR was correlated with poor neurological outcomes after CA (OR = 11.28, 95% CI: 6.29-20.21, and P < 0.001) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 71.5%, P < 0.001). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.47-0.68) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87-0.98), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of GWR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87). Compared with GWR (cerebrum) and GWR (average), GWR using the basal ganglion level of brain CT had the highest AUC of 0.87 (0.84-0.90). Subgroup analysis indicated that heterogeneity may be derived from the time of CT measurement, preset specificity, targeted temperature management, or proportion of cardiac etiology. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the result was stable, and Deeks' plot showed no possible publication bias (P = 0 .64). CONCLUSION: Current research suggests that GWR, especially using the basal ganglion level of brain CT, is a useful parameter for determining neurological outcomes after CA.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Wayne Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jun Young Hong; Dong Hoon Lee; Je Hyeok Oh; Sun Hwa Lee; Yoon Hee Choi; Soo Hyun Kim; Jin Hong Min; Su Jin Kim; Yoo Seok Park Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Chi Heon Jeon; Jung Soo Park; Ji Han Lee; Hoon Kim; Sang Chul Kim; Kyung Hye Park; Kyung Sik Yi; Sun Moon Kim; Chun Song Youn; Young-Min Kim; Byung Kook Lee Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: A Gentsch; C Storm; C Leithner; T Schroeder; C J Ploner; B Hamm; E Wiener; M Scheel Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Yong Hwan Kim; Jun Ho Lee; Chong Kun Hong; Kwang Won Cho; Jung Hoon Yeo; Mun Ju Kang; Yang Weon Kim; Kyoung Yul Lee; Jin Joo Kim; Seong Youn Hwang Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Neill K J Adhikari; Damon C Scales; Carmen Lopez Soto; Laura Dragoi; Chinthaka C Heyn; Andreas Kramer; Ruxandra Pinto Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Sung Ho Kwon; Sang Hoon Oh; Jinhee Jang; Soo Hyun Kim; Kyu Nam Park; Chun Song Youn; Han Joon Kim; Jee Yong Lim; Hyo Joon Kim; Hyo Jin Bang Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-26 Impact factor: 4.964