4.5 Review

Accuracy of Shape Irregularity and Density Heterogeneity on Noncontrast Computed Tomography for Predicting Hematoma Expansion in Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages 347-355

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.022

Keywords

Density heterogeneity; Hematoma expansion; Noncontrast computed tomography; Shape irregularity; Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2014SZ0043]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the predictive values of shape irregularity and density heterogeneity of hematoma on noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) for hematoma expansion (HE). METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Studies about predictive values of shape regularity or density heterogeneity of hematoma on NCCT for HE in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage were included. Meta-analysis was performed to pool the data. Publication bias assessment, subgroup analysis, and univariate meta-regression were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with 2294 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of shape irregularity were 67%, 47%, 1.30, and 0.71, respectively. In contrast, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of density irregularity were 52%, 69%, 1.70, and 0.69, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the relatively low sensitivity and specificity, the predictive values of shape irregularity and density heterogeneity of hematoma for HE are limited. Further studies are still needed to find optimal NCCT predictors for HE in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available