Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial lobar intracerebral haematomas (STICH II): a randomised trial

Open access
Mendelow, A David, Gregson, Barbara A, Rowan, Elise N, Murray, Gordon D, Gholkar, Anil, Mitchell, Patrick M·2013·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The balance of risk and benefit from early neurosurgical intervention for conscious patients with superficial lobar intracerebral haemorrhage of 10-100 mL and no intraventricular haemorrhage admitted within 48 h of ictus is unclear. We therefore tested the hypothesis that early surgery compared with initial conservative treatment could improve outcome in these patients. METHODS: In this international, parallel-group trial undertaken in 78 centres in 27 countries, we compared early surgical haematoma evacuation within 12 h of randomisation plus medical treatment with initial medical treatment alone (later evacuation was allowed if judged necessary). An automatic telephone and internet-based randomisation service was used to assign patients to surgery and initial conservative treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The trial was not masked. The primary outcome was a prognosis-based dichotomised (favourable or unfavourable) outcome of the 8 point Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) obtained by questionnaires posted to patients at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN22153967. FINDINGS: 307 of 601 patients were randomly assigned to early surgery and 294 to initial conservative treatment; 298 and 291 were followed up at 6 months, respectively; and 297 and 286 were included in the analysis, respectively. 174 (59%) of 297 patients in the early surgery group had an unfavourable outcome versus 178 (62%) of 286 patients in the initial conservative treatment group (absolute difference 3·7% [95% CI -4·3 to 11·6], odds ratio 0·86 [0·62 to 1·20]; p=0·367). INTERPRETATION: The STICH II results confirm that early surgery does not increase the rate of death or disability at 6 months and might have a small but clinically relevant survival advantage for patients with spontaneous superficial intracerebral haemorrhage without intraventricular haemorrhage. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60986-1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,420

Metadata

Authors
Mendelow, A. D., Gregson, B. A., Rowan, E. N., Murray, G. D., Gholkar, A., & Mitchell, P. M.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
382
Issue
9890
Pages
397-408
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2112161237
Cited by
1,420
References
2
FWCI
51.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial lobar intracerebral haematomas (STICH II): a randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60986-1
The paper
Mendelow, A. D., Gregson, B. A., Rowan, E. N., Murray, G. D., Gholkar, A., & Mitchell, P. M. (2013). Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial lobar intracerebral haematomas (STICH II): a randomised trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60986-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.