Clinical prediction models for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review

Neurocritical Care

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 143-153

  Jaja, Blessing N R ^a   Cusimano, Michael D ^a   Etminan, Nima ^b   Hanggi, Daniel ^b   Hasan, David ^c   Ilodigwe, Don ^a   Lantigua, Hector ^d   Le Roux, Peter ^e   Lo, Benjamin ^a   Louffat Olivares, Ada ^a   Mayer, Stephan ^d   Molyneux, Andrew ^f   Quinn, Audrey ^g   Schweizer, Tom A ^a   Schenk, Thomas ^h   Spears, Julian ^a   Todd, Michael ^c   Torner, James ^c   Vergouwen, Mervyn D I ⁱ   Wong, George K C ^j   Singh, Jeff ^a   MacDonald, R Loch ^a   more..

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^d Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^g LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^h KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^j CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

more..

Author keywords

Clinical prediction models; Outcome; Subarachnoid hemorrhage; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONVALESCENCE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GLASGOW COMA SCALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANKIN SCALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84873421091     PISSN: 15416933     EISSN: 15560961     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-012-9792-z     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models. A practical approach to development, validation and updating. New York: Springer; 2009.
2. Al-Khindi T, Macdonald RL, Schweizer TA. Cognitive and functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2010;41:e519-36.
3. Lovelock CE, Rinkel GJ, Rothwell PM. Time trends in outcome of subarachnoid hemorrhage: Population-based study and systematic review. Neurology. 2010;74:1494-501.
4. den BS, de Keizer NF, de JE. Performance of prognostic models in critically ill cancer patients - a review. Crit Care. 2005;9:R458-63.
5. Ariesen MJ, Algra A, van der Worp HB, Rinkel GJ. Applicability and relevance of models that predict short term outcome after intracerebral haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:839-44.
6. Beneciuk JM, Bishop MD, George SZ. Clinical prediction rules for physical therapy interventions: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2009;89:114-24.
7. Toll DB, Janssen KJ, Vergouwe Y, Moons KG. Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1085-94.
8. Mallett S, Royston P, Waters R, Dutton S, Altman DG. Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med. 2010;8:21.
9. Noterman J, Brotchi J. A brief history and a few remarks about classifications of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhages and scales of follow-up. Neurochirurgie. 2006;52:83-92.
10. van Gijn J, Bromberg JE, Lindsay KW, Hasan D, Vermeulen M. Definition of initial grading, specific events, and overall outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A survey [Review] [24 refs]. Stroke. 1994;25:1623-7.
11. Cavanagh SJ, Gordon VL. Grading scales used in the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a critical review. J Neurosci Nurs. 2002;34:288-95.
12. Ducati A. The clinical grading of subarachnoid hemorrhage [Review] [8 refs] [Italian]. Minerva Anestesiol. 1998;64:109-12.
13. Rosen DS, Macdonald RL. Subarachnoid hemorrhage grading scales: a systematic review. Neurocrit Care. 2005;2:110-8.
14. Tamargo RJ, Walter KA, Oshiro EM. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: prognostic features and outcomes [Review] [70 refs]. New Horiz. 1997;5:364-75.
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
16. Ingui BJ, Rogers MA. Searching for clinical prediction rules in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:391-7.
17. Risselada R, Lingsma HF, Bauer-Mehren A, et al. Prediction of 60 day case-fatality after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: results from the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT). Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:261-6.
18. Risselada R, Lingsma HF, Molyneux AJ, et al. Prediction of two month modified Rankin Scale with an ordinal prediction model in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:86.
19. Le Roux PD, Elliott JP, Newell DW, Grady MS, Winn HR. Predicting outcome in poor-grade patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: a retrospective review of 159 aggressively managed cases. J Neurosurg. 1996;85:39-49.
20. Mocco J, Ransom ER, Komotar RJ, et al. Preoperative prediction of long-term outcome in poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:529-38.
21. Claassen J, Vu A, Kreiter KT, et al. Effect of acute physiologic derangements on outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:832-8.
22. Turck N, Vutskits L, Sanchez-Pena P, et al. A multiparameter panel method for outcome prediction following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:107-15.
23. Germanson TP, Lanzino G, Kongable GL, Torner JC, Kassell NF. Risk classification after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Surg Neurol. 1998;49:155-63.
24. Lagares A, Gomez PA, Alen JF, et al. A comparison of different grading scales for predicting outcome after subarachnoid haemorrhage. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2005;147:5-16.
25. Ogilvy CS, Quinones-Hinojosa A. Surgical treatment of vertebral and posterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysms [Review] [51 refs]. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1998;9:851-60.
26. Rosen DS, Macdonald RL. Grading of subarachnoid hemorrhage: modification of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies scale on the basis of data for a large series of patients. Neurosurgery. 2004;54:566-75.
27. Salary M, Quigley MR, Wilberger JE Jr. Relation among aneurysm size, amount of subarachnoid blood, and clinical outcome. J Neurosurg. 2007;107:13-7.
28. de TP, Rios PM, Ledezma A, Sanchis A, Alen JF, Lagares A. Predicting the outcome of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage using machine learning techniques. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2009;13:794-801.
29. Degen LA, Dorhout Mees SM, Algra A, Rinkel GJ. Interobserver variability of grading scales for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2011;42:1546-9.
30. Smith ML, Abrahams JM, Chandela S, Smith MJ, Hurst RW, Le Roux PD. Subarachnoid hemorrhage on computed tomography scanning and the development of cerebral vasospasm: the Fisher grade revisited. Surg Neurol. 2005;63:229-34.
31. Frontera JA, Claassen J, Schmidt JM, et al. Prediction of symptomatic vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage: the modified Fisher scale. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:21-7.
32. Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. A practical scale. Lancet. 1975;1:480-4.
33. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van GJ. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604-7.
34. Mushkudiani NA, Hukkelhoven CW, Hernandez AV, et al. A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:331-43.
35. Whiteley W, Chong WL, Sengupta A, Sandercock P. Blood markers for the prognosis of ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2009;40:e380-9.
36. Mocco J, Ransom ER, Komotar RJ, et al. Racial differences in cerebral vasospasm: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:305-14.
37. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40-4.
38. Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001216.
39. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987-91.
40. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006-12.