MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyGuidelineMedicineRandomized controlled trialGrading (engineering)Stroke (engine)PopulationPsychological interventionFamily medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINESurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicinePathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it