Evidence Hub

Noncontrast CT markers of intracerebral hemorrhage expansion and poor outcome: A meta-analysis

Morotti A, Arba F, Boulouis G, Charidimou A

Neurology, 2020

10,650 participants · 91 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide precise estimates of the association between noncontrast CT (NCCT) markers, hematoma expansion (HE), and functional outcome in patients presenting with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: We searched PubMed for English-written observational studies or randomized controlled trials reporting data on NCCT markers of HE and outcome in spontaneous ICH including at least 50 subjects. The outcomes of interest were HE (hematoma growth >33%, >33% and/or >6 mL, >33% and/or >12.5 mL), poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 3-6 or 4-6) at discharge or at 90 days, and mortality. We pooled data in random-effects models and extracted cumulative odds ratio (OR) for each NCCT marker.

RESULTS: We included 25 eligible studies (n = 10,650). The following markers were associated with increased risk of HE and poor outcome, respectively: black hole sign (OR = 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.42-9.64 and OR = 5.26, 95% CI = 1.75-15.76), swirl sign (OR = 3.33, 95% CI = 2.42-4.60 and OR = 3.70; 95% CI = 2.47-5.55), heterogeneous density (OR = 2.74; 95% CI = 1.71-4.39 and OR = 2.80; 95% CI = 1.78-4.39), blend sign (OR = 3.49; 95% CI = 2.20-5.55 and OR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.16-4.18), hypodensities (OR = 3.47; 95% CI = 2.18-5.50 and OR = 2.94; 95% CI = 2.28-3.78), irregular shape (OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.27-3.19 and OR = 3.43; 95% CI = 2.33-5.03), and island sign (OR = 7.87, 95% CI = 2.17-28.47 and OR = 6.05, 95% CI =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 10,650 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free