The Role of Imaging in Clinical Stroke Scales That Predict Functional Outcome: A Systematic Review

Survivors don't fucking care about prediction research. Just get them 100% recovered. Damn it all, do some useful research. Once again with NO strategy we get crapola research like this, wasting time and money. Systematic reviews should never be necessary because that public database of stroke research and protocols is constantly updated with the latest. But that assumes we have stroke leadership enforcing such procedures.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1941874417708128

Show all authors

Fatima Soliman, MD, PhD, Ajay Gupta, MD, Diana Delgado, MLS, ...

First Published May 22, 2017 Research Article

Download PDF	Article information

Abstract

Background and Purpose:

Numerous stroke scales have been developed to predict functional outcomes following acute ischemic stroke. The goal of this study was to summarize functional outcome scores in stroke that incorporate neuroimaging with those that don’t incorporate neuroimaging.

Methods:

Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library Database from inception to January 23, 2015. Additional records were identified by employing the “Cited by” and “View References” features in Scopus. We included studies that described stroke prognosis models or scoring systems that predict functional outcome based on clinical and/or imaging data available on presentation. Score performance was evaluated based on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results:

A total of 3300 articles were screened, yielding 14 scores that met inclusion criteria. Half (7) of the scores included neuroimaging as a predictor variable. Neuroimaging parameters included infarct size on magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging, infarct size defined by computed tomography hypodensity, and hemodynamic abnormality on perfusion imaging. The modified Rankin Scale at 3 months poststroke was the most common functional outcome reported (13 of 14 scores). The AUCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.84 for scores that included neuroimaging as a predictor and 0.64 to 0.94 for scores that did not include neuroimaging. External validation has been performed for 7 scores.

Conclusions:

Due to the marked heterogeneity in the scores and populations in which they were applied, it is unclear whether current imaging-based scores offer advantages over simpler approaches for predicting poststroke function.