4.4 Article

The Prognostic Value of the iScore, the PLAN Score, and the ASTRAL Score in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 1233-1238

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.01.013

Keywords

acute ischemic stroke; prognosis; iScore; PLAN score; ASTRAL score

Funding

  1. Capital Health Research and Development Special Fund [2011-6031-04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Disability and mortality represent the most relevant clinical outcomes after acute ischemic stroke. Recently, a number of prognostic models of acute ischemic stroke have been developed, but they have not been extensively validated. In this study, we evaluated the ability of 3 prognostic models including the iScore, the PLAN score, and the ASTRAL score in predicting clinical poor outcomes or mortality at 6 months in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods: A total of 323 patients were divided into a good-prognosis group and a poor-prognosis group based on the modified Rankin Scale. Model discrimination was quantified by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration was assessed by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test and Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: We identified 96 (29.7%) patients with poor prognosis, including 21 who were dead. All 3 models showed good ability in predicting poor prognosis and mortality in patients with acute ischemic stroke (all ROC > .70). There was no difference between these 3 models in terms of sensitivity and accuracy (all P > .05). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the iScore, the PLAN score, and the ASTRAL score were equal in predicting 6-month poor prognosis and mortality in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Overall, there was a very high correlation between observed and expected outcomes at the risk score level. (C) 2017 National Stroke Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available