Evidence Hub

Noncontrast Computed Tomography Markers of Cerebral Hemorrhage Expansion: Diagnostic Accuracy Meta-Analysis

Arba Francesco, Rinaldi Chiara, Boulouis Grégoire, Fainardi Enrico, Charidimou Andreas, Morotti Andrea

International Journal of Stroke, 2021

10,363 participants · 24 citations

Abstract

Background and purpose Assess the diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) markers of hematoma expansion in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials with available data for calculation of sensitivity and specificity of NCCT markers for hematoma expansion (absolute growth >6 or 12.5 mL and/or relative growth >33%). The following NCCT markers were analyzed: irregular shape, island sign (shape-related features); hypodensity, heterogeneous density, blend sign, black hole sign, and swirl sign (density-related features). Pooled accuracy values for each marker were derived from hierarchical logistic regression models. Results A total of 10,363 subjects from 23 eligible studies were included. Significant risk of bias of included studies was noted. Hematoma expansion frequency ranged from 7% to 40%, mean intracerebral hemorrhage volume from 9 to 27.8 ml, presence of NCCT markers from 9% (island sign) to 82% (irregular shape). Among shape features, sensitivity ranged from 0.32 (95%CI = 0.20–0.47) for island sign to 0.68 (95%CI = 0.57–0.77) for irregular shape, specificity ranged from 0.47 (95%CI = 0.36–0.59) for irregular shape to 0.92 (95%CI = 0.85–0.96) for island sign; among density features sensitivity ranged from 0.28 (95%CI = 0.21–0.35) for black hole sign to 0.63 (95%CI = 0.44–0.78) for hypodensity, specificity ranged from 0.65 (95%CI = 0.56–0.73) for…

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: 10,363 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