Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Employed in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) Clinical Research

Neurocritical Care volume 30, pages 534–541 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Consensus on appropriate outcome measures to use in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) research has not been established, although the transition toward a core outcome set (COS) would provide significant benefits. To inform COS development, we conducted a systematic review to identify outcome measures included in reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions in patients with aSAH. Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched. RCTs investigating aSAH published between January 1996 and May 2015 were included. The primary and secondary outcomes of RCTs were recorded and classified according to the OMERACT Consortium’s framework. We identified 1093 potential studies of which 129 met inclusion criteria representing 24 238 patients. There were 285 unique outcome measures. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) was the most frequently used primary outcome (13/129, 10.1%). Mortality was reported in 84 trials (65.1%) with 3 months the most common time point (34/129, 26.4%). The GOS (65/129, 50.4%) and the Modified Rankin Scale (51/129, 39.5%) were the most commonly reported functional measures; however, these were reported at different time points and often dichotomized using different ranges. Patient-reported quality of life measures were used in 11 trials (8.5%). Transcranial Doppler was the most frequently used imaging modality (40/129, 31.0%). Definitions and reporting of vasospasm, delayed cerebral ischemia and imaging modality results were highly variable. The marked heterogeneity of outcomes in reports of RCTs supports the development of a core outcome set for aSAH trials. Our study has identified a wide range of outcomes for potential inclusion in a future aSAH COS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Lai L, Morgan MK. Incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage: an Australian national hospital morbidity database analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19:733–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. de Rooij NK, Linn FH, van der Plas JA, Algra A, Rinkel GJ. Incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic review with emphasis on region, age, gender and time trends. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:1365–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Schweizer TA, Macdonald RL. Brain hemorrhage: assessing outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6:427–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Suarez JI, Tarr RW, Selman WR. Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:387–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nieuwkamp DJ, Setz LE, Algra A, Linn FH, de Rooij NK, Rinkel GJ. Changes in case fatality of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and region: a meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:635–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Connolly ES Jr, Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43:1711–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vergouwen MD, Vermeulen M, van Gijn J, et al. Definition of delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage as an outcome event in clinical trials and observational studies: proposal of a multidisciplinary research group. Stroke. 2010;41:2391–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baharoglu MI, Germans MR, Rinkel GJ, et al. Antifibrinolytic therapy for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001245.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheehan J, Hirschfeld S, Foster E, et al. Improving the value of clinical research through the use of Common Data Elements. Clin Trials. 2016;13:671–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Gargon E. Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koroshetz W. A core set of trial outcomes for every medical discipline? BMJ. 2015;350:h85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e99111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:745–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thomas JBJ, Graziosi S. EPPI-Reviewer 4: software for research synthesis. London: Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nimmo WS, Tucker GT. Clinical measurement in drug evaluation. New York: Wiley; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet. 1975;1:480–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. I. General considerations. Scott Med J. 1957;2:127–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20:864–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:64–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15:573–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF, Burchenal JH. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. With particular reference to bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer. 1948;1:634–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Teasdale GM, Drake CG, Hunt W, et al. A universal subarachnoid hemorrhage scale: report of a committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988;51:1457.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dikmen S, Machamer J, Miller B, Doctor J, Temkin N. Functional status examination: a new instrument for assessing outcome in traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2001;18:127–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Holman R, Lindeboom R, Glas CAW, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ. Constructing an item bank using item response theory: the AMC linear disability score project. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2003;4:19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. EuroQol G. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19:787–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brass LM. Trial design issues: endpoints and sample size. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1995;5:3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282:1737–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J Personal Assess. 1985;49:71–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale. New York: The Psychological Corporation; 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wechsler D. Wechsler memory scale-revised manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Armitage SG. An analysis of certain psychological tests used for the evaluation of brain injury. Psychol Monogr. 1946;60:1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lindegaard KF, Nornes H, Bakke SJ, Sorteberg W, Nakstad P. Cerebral vasospasm diagnosis by means of angiography and blood velocity measurements. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1989;100:12–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke. 2000;31:1429–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Unruptured cerebral aneurysms and subarachnoid hemorrhage CDE highlight summary. 2017. https://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/Doc/SAH/SAH_CDE_Highlight_Summary.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2017.

  44. Salinas J, Sprinkhuizen SM, Ackerson T, et al. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke. 2016;47:180–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Al-Tamimi YZ, Bhargava D, Feltbower RG, et al. Lumbar drainage of cerebrospinal fluid after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial (LUMAS). Stroke. 2012;43:677–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Etminan N, Beseoglu K, Eicker SO, Turowski B, Steiger HJ, Hanggi D. Prospective, randomized, open-label phase II trial on concomitant intraventricular fibrinolysis and low-frequency rotation after severe subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2013;44:2162–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rasmussen R, Juhler M, Wetterslev J. Effects of continuous prostacyclin infusion on regional blood flow and cerebral vasospasm following subarachnoid haemorrhage: statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:228.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia

    Christopher R. Andersen, Emily Fitzgerald, Anthony Delaney & Simon Finfer

  2. Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, St Leonards, NSW, Australia

    Christopher R. Andersen & Anthony Delaney

  3. Division of Critical Care and Trauma, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Christopher R. Andersen & Simon Finfer

  4. Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford Kadoorie Centre, Level 3, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK

    Christopher R. Andersen

Authors
  1. Christopher R. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Delaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simon Finfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Christopher R. Andersen designed the analysis, completed the data extraction, and wrote the manuscript. Emily Fitzgerald completed the data extraction. Simon Finfer and Anthony Delaney advised and assisted in the analysis of the design and revised and assisted in the completion of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R. Andersen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interset

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andersen, C.R., Fitzgerald, E., Delaney, A. et al. A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Employed in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) Clinical Research. Neurocrit Care 30, 534–541 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-018-0566-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-018-0566-0

Keywords

  • Stroke
  • Subarachnoid hemorrhage
  • Intracranial aneurysm
  • Glasgow Outcome Scale
  • Outcome assessment (health care)
  • Patient-reported outcome measures
  • Critical care outcomes