ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015
Computerized Angiographic Occlusion Rating for Ruptured Clipped Aneurysms is Superior to Subjective Occlusion Rating.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe computerized occlusion rating to estimate angiographic occlusion of embolized aneurysms is superior to the subjective occlusion rating. In this study, we compared the 2 methods in the analysis of aneurysms clipped after subarachnoid hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe pre- and postoperative angiographic images (DSA) of 95 selected patients were analyzed and stratified in 4 grades (grade 0 for 100%, grade I for <99%-90%, grade II for <89%-70%, grade III for <70% occlusion) by using the subjective (angiographic) occlusion rating and the computerized (angiographic) occlusion rating. For the subjective occlusion rating, the occlusion rate was estimated; for the computerized occlusion rating, the "occluded" and "nonoccluded" aneurysm areas were automatically calculated in square millimeters after outlining the ideal occlusion line.
resultsWith the subjective occlusion rating, 75 (78.9%), 12 (12.6%), 7 (7.4%), and 1 (1.1%) and with the computerized occlusion rating 45 (47.4%), 24 (25.3%), 20 (21.0%), and 6 (6.3%) patients had aneurysms stratified to grades 0, I, II and III, respectively. The interobserver variation was significant with the subjective occlusion rating but not with the computerized occlusion rating. The subjective occlusion rating overestimated aneurysm occlusion in 30 (31.6%) patients. Mean values were the following: subjective occlusion rating of 97.5 ± 6.3% and computerized occlusion rating of 93.5 ± 9.7%; P = < .001. No patient rebled, and 4 patients underwent retreatment during 36 ± 38.9 months; the predictive value (log-rank, Kaplan-Meier) of the subjective and computerized occlusion ratings with respect to retreatment was highly significant for both methods (subjective occlusion rating: χ(2), 29.65; P < .001; computerized occlusion rating: χ(2), 35.57, P < .001).
conclusionsThe 2 methods showed remarkable differences in the estimation of the angiographic occlusion rates of clipped aneurysms. The clearly lower interobserver variation of the computerized versus subjective occlusion rating may indicate a superiority of the computerized occlusion rating.
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.