2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08710-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-contrast CT markers of intracerebral hematoma expansion: a reliability study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Semiquantitative measurements were error-prone for calculating the correct diameter of the hemorrhage for assessing the satellite sign (Figure 1C,D) and density differences for the black hole sign or blend sign (Figure 1E-G). In line with this, raters from different clinical backgrounds also tended to obtain higher proportions of positive ratings of NCCT markers according to a recently published study [27]. Variabilities in the ratings of the IRR shape, heterogenous density, and island sign may be further influenced by differences in the slice position of the region of interest (ROI), which should be placed on the axial slice with the largest cross-sectional area of the hematoma (Figure 1B,J) [5].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Semiquantitative measurements were error-prone for calculating the correct diameter of the hemorrhage for assessing the satellite sign (Figure 1C,D) and density differences for the black hole sign or blend sign (Figure 1E-G). In line with this, raters from different clinical backgrounds also tended to obtain higher proportions of positive ratings of NCCT markers according to a recently published study [27]. Variabilities in the ratings of the IRR shape, heterogenous density, and island sign may be further influenced by differences in the slice position of the region of interest (ROI), which should be placed on the axial slice with the largest cross-sectional area of the hematoma (Figure 1B,J) [5].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Although imaging markers had a positive effect on HE prediction, their diagnostic performance was underwhelming. 19,20 Our study showed that FIM >0.63 was a promising alternative. It reached an AUC value of 0.83 and International Journal of Stroke, 19 (2) significantly outperformed the other indicators.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…This technique appears promising for HE prediction, but it remains largely unknown whether it is also effective for predicting RHE and requires further investigation in the future. Although the performance of conventional NCCT signs is inferior to that of the above technologies, these indicators have convenient and rapid characteristics in clinical practice as favorable prognostic predictors [ 11 19 32 ], especially in emergency settings or primary health institutions [ 33 34 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%