ArticleNeuroradiology2014
An approach to the symbolic representation of brain arteriovenous malformations for management and treatment planning.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 4D Flat Panel Conebeam CTA for Analysis of the Angioarchitecture of Cerebral AVMs with a Novel Software Prototype.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Recent progress understanding pathophysiology and genesis of brain AVM-a narrative review.Neurosurgical review · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is currently no standardised approach to arteriovenous malformation (AVM) reporting. Existing AVM classification systems focuses on angioarchitectural features and omit haemodynamic, anatomical and topological parameters intuitively used by therapists.
methodsWe introduce a symbolic vocabulary to represent the state of an AVM of the brain at different stages of treatment. The vocabulary encompasses the main anatomic and haemodynamic features of interest in treatment planning and provides shorthand symbols to represent the interventions themselves in a schematic representation.
resultsThe method was presented to 50 neuroradiologists from 14 countries during a workshop and graded 7.34 ± 1.92 out of ten for its usefulness as means of standardising and facilitating communication between clinicians and allowing comparisons between AVM cases. Feedback from the survey was used to revise the method and improve its completeness. For an AVM test case, participants were asked to produce a conventional written report and subsequently a diagrammatic report. The two required, on average, 6.19 ± 2.05 and 5.09 ± 3.01 min, respectively. Eighteen participants said that producing the diagram changed the way they thought about the AVM test case.
conclusionIntroduced into routine practice, the diagrams would represent a step towards a standardised approach to AVM reporting with consequent benefits for comparative analysis and communication as well as for identifying best treatment strategies.
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.