ArticleDer Radiologe2012
[Recent studies on intracranial stenosis].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical issueSymptomatic intracranial stenoses are associated with a high risk of stroke. Medical management with platelet inhibitors or anticoagulation has not been shown to substantially lower this risk. Hence, alternative treatment options are desperately needed. TREATMENT INNOVATIONS: The concept of percutaneous intervention using balloon angioplasty with or without stenting is appealing at first sight which is why intracranial balloons and stents were developed. PERFORMANCE: Initial studies using dedicated intracranial stents were more promising; however, the only randomized trial recently published using a dedicated intracranial self-expanding stent demonstrated a high periprocedural complication rate. EVALUATION AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to study design limitations it would be premature to categorically denounce an interventional option for the treatment of symptomatic intracranial stenoses. More importantly, the results of the randomized SAMMPRIS trial should stimulate the development of safer technology and patient selection to minimize procedural risks. This will perhaps allow significant risk reduction of this potentially devastating intracranial condition when it cannot otherwise be addressed.
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.