Evidence Hub

Response by Fu et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Iodine Sign as a Novel Predictor of Hematoma Expansion and Poor Outcomes in Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients".

Fan Fu, Sheng-Jun Sun, Ying-Ying Li

Stroke, 2018

Abstract

In Response: We appreciate the interest concerning our study entitled “Iodine Sign as a Novel Predictor of Hematoma Expansion and Poor Outcomes in Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients.” We have studied the comment carefully and thank for your approval. It is thoughtful for the comment that comparing the accuracy of between the spot sign with higher iodine concentration and the Iodine sign for predicting hematoma expansion and poor outcome in the same cohort. However, because we know that the sensitivity of the spot sign is relatively low, thus, higher iodine concentration based on the spot sign may still consist the same limitation. In addition, we totally agree that integrated imaging predictor could be helpful to identify the patients at high risk of hematoma expansion. The blend sign, black hole sign, and island sign reported in recent years were all accurate and significate predictors. Also, we could compare the predictive value for hematoma expansion among the noncontrast computed tomography, Gemstone spectral computed tomography, and both of them in the future. In conclusion, we are thankful for the comments, and further research is needed.

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.

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