Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26670298›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2016

Controversies in epidemiology of intracranial aneurysms and SAH.

Miikka Korja, Jaakko Kaprio

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Spontaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage.Lancet (London, England) · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Miikka KorjaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. BOX 266, FI-00029 HUS, Finland.
Jaakko KaprioDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, P.O. BOX 41, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rupture of an intracranial aneurysm is the most common cause of subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), which is a life-threatening acute cerebrovascular event that typically affects working-age people. The exact prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) is unknown, but at least one in 20 to 30 adults is likely to carry an asymptomatic UIA. Approximately one quarter of these UIAs rupture in a lifetime. Complex methodological challenges in conducting studies of epidemiology and risk factors for UIAs and SAH might have led to conclusions being drawn on the basis of epidemiological data of variable quality. We believe that, as a result, misconceptions about UIAs and SAH may have arisen. In this Perspectives article, we discuss three possible misconceptions about the epidemiology of UIAs and SAH, and suggest how the quality of future research could be improved.

Indexed as

AdultAneurysm, RupturedBiasBiomedical ResearchCross-Cultural ComparisonCross-Sectional StudiesDiseases in TwinsFinlandGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansIncidenceIntracranial AneurysmRisk FactorsSubarachnoid Hemorrhage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.