4.5 Article

Development and validation of the hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage prognosis models

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 97, Issue 39, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012446

Keywords

high blood pressure; intracerebral hemorrhage; prediction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To develop and validate the prognosis model of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage based on admission characteristics, which would be applied to predict the 3-month outcome. For developing the prognosis models, we studied data from 325 patients with retrospectively consecutive hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage admitted between 2012 and 2016. The predictive value of admission characteristics was tested in logistic regression models, presenting 3-month outcome as the primary outcome. The performance of the models was tested by discrimination and calibration. After development, internal and external validations were used to test the function. The multivariate analysis of logistic regression indicated that age, Glasgow coma scale score, pupillary light reflex, hypoxemia, intracerebral hemorrhage volume, blood glucose, and D-dimer level were independent factors of the hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage prognosis model. The prognosis model based on those admission risk factors worked well. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to analyze the discriminant ability of model A, model A + B, and model A + B + C. Specifically, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve increased from 0.816 (model A; 95% CI, 0.760-0.872) to 0.913 (model A + B + C; 95% CI, 0.881-0.946), and the models were not overoptimistic and were applicably confirmed by internal and external validations respectively. This prognosis model could be used to predict the prognosis of patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage early, simply and accurately, contributing to the clinical treatment eventuall

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