Assessment and Comparison of the Four Most Extensively Validated Prognostic Scales for Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating disorder, responsible for 10% of all strokes. Several prognostic scores have been developed for this population to predict mortality and functional outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the four most frequently validated and most widely used scores, assess their discrimination for both outcomes by means of a systematic review with meta-analysis, and compare them using meta-regression.PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched for studies validating the ICH score, ICH-GS, modified ICH, and the FUNC score in ICH patients. C-statistic was chosen as the measure of discrimination. For each score and outcome, C-statistics were aggregated at four different time points using random effect models, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Score comparison was undertaken by pooling all C-statistics at different time points using robust variance estimation (RVE) and performing meta-regression, with the score used as the independent variable.Fifty-three studies were found validating the original ICH score, 14 studies were found validating the ICH-GS, eight studies were found validating the FUNC score, and five studies were found validating the modified ICH score. Most studies attempted outcome prediction at 3 months or earlier. Pooled C-statistics ranged from 0.76 for FUNC functional outcome prediction at discharge to 0.85 for ICH-GS mortality prediction at 3 months, but heterogeneity was high across studies. RVE showed the ICH score retained the highest discrimination for mortality (c = 0.84), whereas the modified ICH score retained the highest discrimination for functional outcome (c = 0.80), but these differences were not statistically significant.The ICH score is the most extensively validated score in ICH patients and, in the absence of superior prediction by other scores, should preferably be used. Further studies are needed to validate prognostic scores at longer follow-ups and assess the reasons for heterogeneity in discrimination.