Evidence Hub

A comparative study of the blend sign and the black hole sign on CT as a predictor of hematoma expansion in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage

Li R, Yang M

Bioscience trends, 2017

228 participants · 24 citations

Abstract

Hematoma expansion (HE) is a major determinant of a poor outcome in patients with a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). The blend sign and the black hole sign are distinguished from non-contrast CT (NCCT) in patients with sICH, and both are independent neuroimaging predictors of HE. The purpose of the current study was to compare the value of the two signs in the prediction of HE. We retrospectively analyzed clinical and neuroimaging data from 228 patients with sICH who were treated at our hospital between August 2015 and September 2017. NCCT of the brain was performed upon admission (within 6 h of the onset of symptoms) to identify the blend sign and the black hole sign. HE was determined based on CT during a follow-up 24 h later. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with which the blend sign and the black hole sign predicted HE were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed in order to compare the accuracy of the two signs in predicting HE. The blend sign was identified in 46 patients (20.2%) and the black hole sign was identified in 38 (16.7%) based on NCCT of the brain upon admission. Of the 65 patients with HE, the blend sign was noted in 28 and the black hole sign was noted in 22. The blend sign had a sensitivity of predicting HE of 43.1%, a specificity of 89.0%, a PPV of 60.9%, and an NPV of 79.7%. In contrast, the black hole sign had a sensitivity of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 228 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