ArticleNeurosurgical review2018
The application of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a retrospective, single-center study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role and Reliability of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score in Decision-making in Surgical Indications for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Based on the Results at a Japanese Single Center.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Intracranial aneurysm wall (in)stability-current state of knowledge and clinical perspectives.Neurosurgical review · 2022Review
- Application of unruptured aneurysm scoring systems to a cohort of ruptured aneurysms: are we underestimating rupture risk?Neurosurgical review · 2021Article
- Inquiring the real-world clinical performance of the Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score (UIATS).Neurosurgical review · 2021Article
- Inquiring the real-world clinical performance of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS).Neurosurgical review · 2021Article
- Management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: correlation of UIATS, ELAPSS, and PHASES with referral center practice.Neurosurgical review · 2021Article
- The Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score as a predictor of aneurysm growth or rupture.European journal of neurology · 2021Observational
- Effect of Aneurysm and Patient Characteristics on Intracranial Aneurysm Wall Thickness.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Small vs. Large Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm: Concerns With the Age of Patient.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Microsurgical clipping vs. arterial embolization in the treatment of ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS) was published in April 2015 as a multidisciplinary consensus regarding treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA). As a tertiary center with focus on vascular neurosurgery, we aimed to investigate whether our treatment decision-making in patients with UIA has been in accordance with the recently published UIATS. A retrospective analysis of patients admitted to our center with UIA was performed. UIATS was applied to all identified UIA. Three decision groups were defined: (a) UIATS favoring treatment, (b) UIATS favoring observation, and (c) UIATS inconclusive. These results were then compared to our clinical decisions. Spearman's rank-order correlation (ρ) was run to determine the relationship between the UIATS and our clinical decisions. Cases of discrepancies between UIATS and our clinical decisions were then examined for complications, defined as periprocedural adverse events in treated aneurysms, or aneurysm rupture in untreated aneurysms. Ninety-three patients with 147 UIA were included. A total of 118/147 (80.3%) UIA were treated. In 70/118 (59.3%), UIATS favored treatment, in 18/118 (15.3%), it was inconclusive, and in 30/118 (25.4%), it favored observation. A total of 29/147 (19.7%) UIA were not treated. In 15/29 (51.7%), UIATS favored observation, in 9/29 (31%), it favored treatment, and in 5/29 (17.2%), it was inconclusive (ρ = 0.366, p < 0.01). Discrepancies between UIATS and our clinical decisions did not correlate with complications (ρ = 0.034, p = 0.714). Our analysis shows that our more intuitive clinical decision-making has been in line with UIATS. Our treatment decisions did not correlate with an increased rate of complications.
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.