Cited by 103Intracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications

Is hypertension a more frequent risk factor for deep than for lobar supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage?

Open access
Jackson, C A, Sudlow, C L M·2006·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether evidence from observational studies supports the widely held belief that hypertension is more commonly a risk factor for deep than for lobar supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage. METHODS: Studies comparing the frequency of hypertension as a risk factor for deep versus lobar supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage, excluding haemorrhages with identified secondary causes, were identified and subjected to a meta-analysis. The effects of predefined methodological quality criteria on the results were assessed and other sources of bias were considered. RESULTS: The pooled result from all 28 included studies (about 4000 patients) found hypertension to be about twice as common in patients with deep as in those with lobar haemorrhage (odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.82 to 2.42), but there was significant heterogeneity between studies. The pooled OR was less extreme for studies that used a pre-stroke definition of hypertension, were population based or included first-ever strokes only. In the three studies meeting all criteria (601 patients), deep haemorrhage was associated with a smaller, statistically significant excess of hypertension (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.07). The OR for studies confined to younger patients seemed to be more extreme (12.32, 95% CI 6.13 to 24.77), but none of these studies fulfilled our methodological quality criteria. Additional, unquantified sources of bias included uncertainty about whether those doctors reporting brain scans were blind to hypertension status, uncertain reliability of the classification of haemorrhage location and variable rates of investigation for secondary causes. CONCLUSIONS: An excess of hypertension was found in patients with deep versus lobar intracerebral haemorrhages without an identified secondary cause, but this may be due to residual, unquantified methodological biases.

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 · 10.1136/jnnp.2006.089292

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Non-lobar intracerebral haemorrhages are not thought to be caused by cerebral amyloid angiopathy and are mostly due to perforating arteriolar vasculopathy.

    “non-lobar intracerebral haemorrhages, which are not thought to be caused by cerebral amyloid angiopathy, and are mostly due to perforating arteriolar vasculopathy.64,65”

    From Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration (2013) · cites this paper as [65]

    The paper says cerebral amyloid angiopathy causes mainly lobar haemorrhages and describes a proposed link between deep haemorrhage and disease of small perforating vessels. It does not rule out amyloid angiopathy as a cause of non-lobar haemorrhage or establish that most non-lobar haemorrhages result from perforating arteriolar vasculopathy; it notes uncertainty about that vascular pathology (introductory passage and Discussion; page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Lobar intracerebral haemorrhages might be caused by cerebral amyloid angiopathy.

    “lobar intracerebral haemorrhages, which might be caused by cerebral amyloid angiopathy”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, C. A., & Sudlow, C. L. M.
Affiliations
Western General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Jackson, C A
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-05-11
Volume
77
Issue
11
Pages
1244-1252
ISSN
0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148019553
Cited by
103
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (063668)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Intracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Intracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Keywords
hypertension, intracerebral hemorrhage, lobar hemorrhage, supratentorial hemorrhage, stroke risk factors, methodological bias
MeSH terms
Brain, Cerebral Hemorrhage, Humans, Hypertension, Risk Factors, Odds Ratio

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