ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2012
Computerized occlusion rating: a superior predictor of aneurysm rebleeding for ruptured embolized aneurysms.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multifactorial Assessment of Complication Risks in Embolization for Ruptured Cerebral Aneurysm.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2025Article
- Computerized Angiographic Occlusion Rating for Ruptured Clipped Aneurysms is Superior to Subjective Occlusion Rating.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe initial angiographic occlusion rate is the strongest predictor of later rebleeding in previously ruptured coil-embolized cerebral aneurysms. Angiographic estimations of aneurysmal occlusion rates are, however, subjective in nature and confounded by methodologic problems. COR has been developed, and its superiority has been experimentally established to overcome subjective bias. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical value of COR as a more objective predictor of aneurysm rebleeding when compared with SOR as described in the Raymond Classification. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe applied COR in a consecutive series of 249 patients. Two DSA projections were selected independently by 2 blinded investigators. In cases of disagreement on the selected projections, a consensus decision was obtained. SOR were determined by 2 independent observers according to the Raymond classification. COR was measured by 2 blinded investigators. Interobserver variations were determined for SOR and COR. COR results were compared with SOR results and stratified as 100%, 99.9%-90%, 89.9%-70%, and <70% occlusion. SOR and COR were evaluated as predictors for aneurysm rebleeding.
resultsSeven aneurysms rebled (2.8%; follow-up, 59 ± 35 months). In 20.9% of all cases, DSA selection was performed by consensus evaluations. Interobserver variations were statistically significant for SOR (P = .0030) but not for COR (P = .3517). Compared with COR, SOR overestimated the degree of aneurysmal occlusion in 81.9% of all cases. Only COR predicted rebleeding (P = .0162).
conclusionsUnacceptable interobserver variations were shown for the standard SOR estimations. COR substantially reduced the impact of subjective bias. COR may, therefore, serve as an easily applicable more objective predictor of aneurysm rerupture. The remaining bias of COR, caused by 2D image analysis, may be overcome by use of direct 3D measurements.
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.