Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27314427›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in neurology2016

Cerebral Microhemorrhages: Significance, Associations, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Eric Jouvent, Laurent Puy, Hugues Chabriat

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Eric JouventUniv Paris Diderot, UMR-S 1161 INSERM and DHU NeuroVasc Sorbonne Paris Cité and AP-HP, Lariboisière Hosp, Department of Neurology, 2 rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, Paris, France.
Laurent PuyUniv Paris Diderot, UMR-S 1161 INSERM and DHU NeuroVasc Sorbonne Paris Cité and AP-HP, Lariboisière Hosp, Department of Neurology, 2 rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, Paris, France.
Hugues ChabriatUniv Paris Diderot, UMR-S 1161 INSERM and DHU NeuroVasc Sorbonne Paris Cité and AP-HP, Lariboisière Hosp, Department of Neurology, 2 rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, Paris, France. Hugues.chabriat@aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AntithromboticsCerebral microhemorrhageIntracerebral hemorrhageIschemic strokeMRI

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.