MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410589389 · doi:10.1177/23969873251340815

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) and European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) guideline on stroke due to spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage

2025· article· en· W4410589389 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésObservational studyGuidelineMedicineRandomized controlled trialGrading (engineering)Stroke (engine)PopulationPsychological interventionFamily medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINESurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicinePathologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Spontaneous (non-traumatic) intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) affects ~3.4 million people worldwide each year, causing ~2.8 million deaths. Many randomised controlled trials and high-quality observational studies have added to the evidence base for the management of people with ICH since the last European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines for the management of spontaneous ICH were published in 2014, so we updated the ESO guideline. This guideline update was guided by the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) standard operating procedures for guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, in collaboration with the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). We identified 37 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions and prioritised clinical outcomes. We conducted systematic literature searches, tailored to each PICO, seeking randomised controlled trials (RCT) – or observational studies when RCTs were not appropriate, or not available – that investigated interventions to improve clinical outcomes. A group of co-authors allocated to each PICO screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and extracted data from included studies. A methodologist conducted study-level meta-analyses and created summaries of findings tables. The same group of co-authors graded the quality of evidence, and drafted recommendations that were reviewed, revised and approved by the entire group. When there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation, each group of co-authors drafted an expert consensus statement, which was reviewed, revised and voted on by the entire group. The systematic literature search revealed 115,647 articles. We included 208 studies. We found strong evidence for treatment of people with ICH on organised stroke units, and secondary prevention of stroke with blood pressure lowering. We found weak evidence for scores for predicting macrovascular causes underlying ICH; acute blood pressure lowering; open surgery via craniotomy for supratentorial ICH; minimally invasive surgery for supratentorial ICH; decompressive surgery for deep supratentorial ICH; evacuation of cerebellar ICH > 15 mL; external ventricular drainage with intraventricular thrombolysis for intraventricular extension; minimally invasive surgical evacuation of intraventricular blood; intermittent pneumatic compression to prevent proximal deep vein thrombosis; antiplatelet therapy for a licensed indication for secondary prevention; and applying a care bundle. We found strong evidence against anti-inflammatory drug use outside of clinical trials. We found weak evidence against routine use of rFVIIa, platelet transfusions for antiplatelet-associated ICH, general policies that limit treatment within 24 h of ICH onset, temperature and glucose management as single measures (outside of care bundles), prophylactic anti-seizures medicines, and prophylactic use of temperature-lowering measures, prokinetic anti-emetics, and/or antibiotics. New evidence about the management of ICH has emerged since 2014, enabling this update of the ESO guideline to provide new recommendations and consensus statements. Although we made strong recommendations for and against a few interventions, we were only able to make weak recommendations for and against many others, or produce consensus statements where the evidence was insufficient to guide clinical decisions. Although progress has been made, many interventions still require definitive, high-quality evidence, underpinning the need for embedding clinical trials in routine clinical practice for ICH.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,571
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,264
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle