ReviewCurrent treatment options in neurology2016
Cerebral Microhemorrhages: Significance, Associations, Diagnosis, and Treatment.
Review in Current treatment options in neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety of Bioplasma FDP and Hemopure in rhesus macaques after 30% hemorrhage.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024Article
- Risk factors and a prediction model for the prognosis of intracerebral hemorrhage using cerebral microhemorrhage and clinical factors.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Article
- Brain Injury Lesion Imaging Using Preconditioned Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping without Skull Stripping.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2018Article
- Incident risk and progression of cerebral microbleeds in healthy adults: a multi-occasion longitudinal study.Neurobiology of aging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementCerebrovascular pathologies expose patients to both ischemic and hemorrhagic risks. Given the progressive aging of populations, more and more patients will experience both types of events during their lifetime. The generalization of brain magnetic resonance imaging as a first-line imaging modality for evaluating patients with cerebrovascular diseases has led to the need to manage new types of imaging information about the cerebral tissue, such as the presence, location, and number of cerebral microhemorrhages (CMs). Originally, CMs were thought to be merely spatially localized distortions of the image, mostly secondary to foci of iron deposition within the brain parenchyma. During the past 20 years, however, innumerable research studies have demonstrated that these small foci of signal loss, presumably related to a circumscribed rupture of small vessels, may be used to better estimate the balance between hemorrhagic and ischemic risks. We are now entering the era of personalized medicine, in which treatment decisions are adjusted for each patient according to various genetic, biological, or imaging data. Therefore, integrating CMs into patient management at the individual level will be crucial in the future. This review aims to deliver some clues to interpret the impact of CMs on our clinical decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27314427What 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.