Stockholm CT score

• Adrenal lesions in patients with abdominal multitrauma
• Prospective observational study of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis - analysis of clinical data, fatigue and health-related quality of life during the induction phase
• Quality appraisal of radiomics-based studies on chondrosarcoma using METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS)
• Leveraging pulse wave signal properties for coronary artery calcification screening in CKD patients
• Adjustment of the SMART risk score by bioactive adrenomedullin enables a more accurate prediction of mortality in patients with ASCVD
• The Eating Disorders Genetics Initiative 2 (EDGI2): study protocol
• Image-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) with Enhanced Visualization of Tumor and Hepatic Parenchyma in Patients with Primary and Metastatic Liver Malignancies
• Enhancing Cardiovascular Risk Prediction with a Simplified Carotid IMT Protocol: Evidence from the IMPROVE Study

New Traumatic brain injury CT Classifications have emerged, including the Stockholm CT score in 2010 ¹⁾ and the Helsinki CT score in 2014 ²⁾.

The Stockholm CT score uses midline shift as a continuous variable (as compared to the Marshall computed tomography classification’s and Rotterdam CT score’s threshold of ≥5 mm) and has a separate scoring for tSAH ³⁾. It is also the only scoring system that takes diffuse axonal injury (DAI) visible on CT into consideration ⁴⁾. Moreover, the Stockholm CT score remains the only scoring system that is based on many features of CT scans examined prospectively using an extended protocol, to identify information content. The Helsinki CT score is based on components from both the Marshall computed tomography classification and Rotterdam CT score, but additionally focuses more on the types of intracranial injuries present ⁵⁾. Thus, the Stockholm and Helsinki CT scoring systems more comprehensively analyze different components of the admission CT scan, and have both been shown to be better outcome predictors than the Marshall computed tomography classification and Rotterdam CT score ^{6) 7)}.

The Stockholm and Helsinki CT scores provide more information on the damage sustained, and give a more accurate outcome prediction, than earlier classification systems. The strong independent predictive value of tSAH may reflect an underrated component of TBI pathophysiology. A change to these newer CT scoring systems may be warranted ⁸⁾.

Marshall head computed tomography (CT) classification for traumatic brain injury is widely used as a predictor of outcome. However, this grading system lacks the following variables, which are found to be useful predictors: subarachnoid/intraventricular hemorrhage, extradural hematoma, and extent of basal cistern compression. A new classification called the Rotterdam CT score, incorporating the above variables, was proposed later.

Both Marshall and Rotterdam CT score are good in predicting early mortality after moderate and severe TBI ⁹⁾.

As the Rotterdam system also includes additional variables like subarachnoid hemorrhage, it may be preferable, particularly in patients with diffuse injury ¹⁰⁾.

Use of the novel Helsinki CT score improved outcome prediction accuracy, and the Helsinki CT score is a feasible alternative to the Rotterdam and Marshall CT systems. External validation of the Helsinki CT score is advocated to show generalizability ¹¹⁾.