2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcomes in a Case Series of Elderly Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhages in the Barrow Ruptured Aneurysm Trial (BRAT)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even elderly patients with good neurological grades may have worse outcomes compared to younger patients. Catapano et al analysed outcomes of elderly patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage stratified by age and clinical presentation [ 41 ]. They reported that those 65 years and older were more likely to have poor functional outcomes compared to patients 60–65 years, and among good grade patients, those 65 years and older had poorer outcomes than the 60–65 years cohort at 6-year follow-up.…”
Section: Key Challenges In Elderly Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even elderly patients with good neurological grades may have worse outcomes compared to younger patients. Catapano et al analysed outcomes of elderly patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage stratified by age and clinical presentation [ 41 ]. They reported that those 65 years and older were more likely to have poor functional outcomes compared to patients 60–65 years, and among good grade patients, those 65 years and older had poorer outcomes than the 60–65 years cohort at 6-year follow-up.…”
Section: Key Challenges In Elderly Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of this, the observed treatment benefit is purely risk-based. We applied a superior method to investigating heterogeneity of treatment effect than conventional subgroup analysis [ 2 , 3 , 25 , 26 ]. First, because the tool’s risk-based benefit estimation is not hampered by the power issue of conventional subgroup analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%