Table 2 Comparison of the three scoring methods in patients with good and poor clinical outcomes
Overall (n = 63) | Good clinical outcome (n = 36) | Poor clinical outcome (n = 27) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ordinal scoring, M(IQR) | ||||
Auto-ASPECTS | 8 (6, 9) | 9 (7, 10) | 7 (3, 9) | 0.0070 |
NCCT-ASPECTS | 10 (8, 10) | 10 (9, 10) | 8 (4, 10) | 0.0006 |
CTP-ASPECTS | 6 (4, 8) | 8 (6, 9) | 4 (1, 6) | < 0.0001 |
Dichotomized scoring, n(%) | ||||
Auto-ASPECTS | ||||
< 6 | 13 (20.63) | 2 (5.56) | 11 (40.74) | 0.0006 |
≥ 6 | 50 (79.37) | 34 (94.44) | 16 (59.26) | |
NCCT-ASPECTS | ||||
< 6 | 9 (14.29) | 0 (0.00) | 9 (33.33) | 0.0007 |
≥ 6 | 54 (85.71) | 36 (100.00) | 18 (66.67) | |
CTP-ASPECTS | ||||
< 6 | 23 (36.51) | 3 (8.33) | 20 (74.07) | < 0.0001 |
≥ 6 | 40 (63.49) | 33 (91.67) | 7 (25.93) |