Evidence Hub

Risk factors of prognosis for spontaneous cerebellar hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shu J, Wang W, Ye R, Zhou Y, Tong J, Li X, Lv X, Zhang G et al.

Acta neurochirurgica, 2024

539 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: The most deadly type of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage is spontaneous cerebellar hemorrhage (SCH). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate risk factors for prognosis in SCH patients to provide a basis for taking preventive and therapeutic measures.

Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2023 for randomized controlled trial, cohort study, case control study and cross-sectional study on prognosis of spontaneous cerebellar hemorrhage. The quality of the selected studies were assessed by the American Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). To assess the impact of the included risk factors on the prognosis of spontaneous cerebellar hemorrhage, combined odds ratios (ORs) with matching 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined.

Results: Eight studies were included, including 539 participants. And a total of 31 potentially associated risk factors were identified. Ultimately, 6 risk factors were included in the meta-analysis after assessing. The factors supported by moderate evidence include the hydrocephalus (OR = 4.3, 95% CI: 2.33 to 7.91) and drug-induced coagulopathy (OR = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.23 to 6.09). The factors supported by limited evidence include the intraventricular bleeding(OR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.13 to 3.07) and hematoma size>3 cm(OR = 3.18, 95% CI: 1.87 to 5.39). Meta-analysis revealed no association between hypertension, diabetes mellitus and SCH prognosis.

Conclusion: The current meta-analysis…

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: 539 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