Methodological quality of multivariate prognostic models for intracranial haemorrhages in intensive care units: a systematic review.

Abstract

Patients with severe spontaneous intracranial haemorrhages, managed in intensive care units, face ethical issues regarding the difficulty of anticipating their recovery. Prognostic tools help clinicians in counselling patients and relatives and guide therapeutic decisions. We aimed to methodologically assess prognostic tools for functional outcomes in severe spontaneous intracranial haemorrhages. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations, we conducted a systematic review querying Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane in January 2020. We included development or validation of multivariate prognostic models for severe intracerebral or subarachnoid haemorrhage. We evaluated the articles following the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies and Transparent Reporting of multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statements to assess the tools' methodological reporting. Of the 6149 references retrieved, we identified 85 articles eligible. We discarded 43 articles due to the absence of prognostic performance or predictor selection. Among the 42 articles included, 22 did not validate models, 6 developed and validated models and 14 only externally validated models. When adding 11 articles comparing developed models to existing ones, 25 articles externally validated models. We identified methodological pitfalls, notably the lack of adequate validations or insufficient performance levels. We finally retained three scores predicting mortality and unfavourable outcomes: the IntraCerebral Haemorrhages (ICH) score and the max-ICH score for intracerebral haemorrhages, the SubArachnoid Haemorrhage International Trialists score for subarachnoid haemorrhages. Although prognostic studies on intracranial haemorrhages abound in the literature, they lack methodological robustness or show incomplete reporting. Rather than developing new scores, future authors should focus on externally validating and updating existing scores with large and recent cohorts.