MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411951374 · doi:10.1111/acem.70087

Diagnostic Accuracy and Application of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Decision Rules Among Patients With Non‐Traumatic Acute Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4411951374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahdi Roostaei, Nadia Saniee, Seyyed Amir Yasin Ahmadi, Mahdi Rezai, Arash Tehrani‐Banihashemi, Hamid Reza Baradaran, Farzaneh Barzkar

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiagnostic odds ratioLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingMeta-analysisOdds ratioEmergency departmentFalse positive paradoxSubarachnoid hemorrhageHeadachesDiagnostic accuracyConfidence intervalRadiologyInternal medicineSurgeryMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Ottawa and Emerald rules were developed to aid in the diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and to determine whether a CT scan is necessary for patients presenting with non-traumatic acute headaches in the emergency department. Numerous studies have been conducted to validate these clinical decision rules. In this study, we aimed to investigate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of these rules and their impact on imaging utilization. METHODS: In this PRISMA-DTA-compliant systematic review, a comprehensive search was done in databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Then, screening, selection of studies, and data extraction were performed and the QUADAS-2 tool was used for critical appraisal. The true positives (TP), false negatives (FN), false positives (FP), and true negatives (TN) were extracted to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) with 95% CIs. The effect of Ottawa rule on CT scan utilization was assessed by calculating pooled odds ratios for the number of CT scans in SAH and non-SAH groups before and after applying the rule. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative LR, and positive LR for the Ottawa SAH rule were 99% (95% CI: 92%-100%), 23% (95% CI: 16%-32%), 0.025 (95% CI: 0.003%-0.193%), and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.16%-1.42%) respectively. Similarly, these measures for the Emerald SAH rule were 99% (95% CI: 71%-100%), 27% (95% CI: 15%-43%), 0.065 (95% CI: 0.004%-1.072%), and 1.34 (95% CI: 1.1%-1.62%), respectively. The pooled odds ratio for CT scan utilization for the Ottawa rule was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.62%-2.13%). CONCLUSION: Both rules are highly sensitive for excluding SAH in patients with non-traumatic acute headaches presenting to the emergency department but have low specificity and do not significantly reduce CT scan utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023476444.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207