ArticleJournal of neurology2009
Classical crossed brain stem syndromes: myth or reality?
Article in Journal of neurology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Oculomotor Cranial Neuropathies: Diagnosis and Management.Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2022Article
- Crossed brainstem syndrome revealing bleeding brainstem cavernous malformation: an illustrative case.BMC neurology · 2021Article
- A case of classic raymond syndrome.Case reports in neurological medicine · 2012Article
- Commentary.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous crossed brain stem syndromes have been described, especially in the nineteenth century. While these syndromes are passed on in neurological textbooks, their relevance in clinical neurology remains to be elucidated. To investigate the prevalence of classical crossed brain stem syndromes in clinical practice, we prospectively recruited 308 consecutive patients with signs and symptoms indicative of acute brain stem infarction. Standardized high-resolution MR imaging and multimodal electrophysiological brain stem testing were applied to localize the site of the acute lesion. We performed a computer-based correlation of clinical signs and symptoms of our patients to those reported in the original historical publications for more than 25 crossed brain stem syndromes. Fourteen cases matched the clinical criteria of Wallenberg's syndrome, two patients had Babinski-Nageotte's syndrome, two had Raymond-Cestan's, one showed Weber's, and one Claude's syndrome. All other tested syndromes were not present in the cohort. More than 20% of patients showed different, so far unnamed crossed symptom combinations. In conclusion, except for Wallenberg's syndrome, classical crossed brain stem syndromes do not seem to play a relevant role in clinical neurology. Other syndromes may serve as theoretical models only that illustrate possible neuroanatomical connections in the human brain stem. This is complicated, however, by considerable topographic and terminological inconsistencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.