Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29433365›Full record

ReviewInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2018

Treatment outcomes in cerebral artery dissection and literature review.

Karanarak Urasyanandana, Dittapong Songsang, Taweesak Aurboonyawat, Ekawut Chankaew, Pattarawit Withayasuk, Anchalee Churojana

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clival fractures in children: a challenge in the trauma room setting!Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The endovascular treatment strategies of cerebrovascular injuries in traumatic brain injury.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Effect of Transradial Artery Catheterization on Shock Patients.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karanarak Urasyanandana1 Department of Surgery, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2679-3419
Dittapong Songsang2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mahidol University Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Taweesak Aurboonyawat2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mahidol University Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ekawut Chankaew2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mahidol University Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pattarawit Withayasuk2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mahidol University Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Anchalee Churojana2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mahidol University Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Siriraj Hospital · THPhramongkutklao Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methods Patients with cerebral artery dissections were reviewed in a hospital setting from 2008 to 2015. Clinical presentations, lesion locations, treatment modalities, functional outcomes, and mortality were reviewed. Parent artery occlusion was the first choice for surgery or endovascular treatment of a hemorrhagic dissecting cerebral artery. Endovascular or surgical reconstructive treatment was indicated in patients whose parent artery could not be occluded. Favorable functional outcomes were determined using modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2. Results In total, 61 patients with cerebral artery dissections were admitted to the hospital. Seven (11.5%) had traumatic dissections. All traumatic dissections were located in the internal carotid arteries. Overall favorable outcome rate was about 57% (4/7). Spontaneous cerebral artery dissections were found in 54 patients. No difference in favorable outcomes was observed between parent vessel occlusion and selective occlusion with parent vessel preservation (or vessel reconstruction) (70% and 63%, respectively, p = 1.000). Patients who presented with spontaneous dissection without intracranial hemorrhage had more favorable outcomes than those with intracranial hemorrhage (79% and 52%, respectively, p = 0.045). The mortality rate of patients with spontaneous dissection was 7.4%. Conclusions Most of the traumatic dissections were located on the internal carotid arteries and spontaneous dissections were commonly located on vertebral arteries. Nonhemorrhagic spontaneous cerebral dissections had better functional outcomes after treatment. Endovascular and surgical management were effective treatments by parent vessel occlusion or reconstructions.

Indexed as

Cerebral ArteriesAdultAortic DissectionCerebral AngiographyChildCraniocerebral TraumaEmbolization, TherapeuticEndovascular ProceduresFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansIntracranial AneurysmMalePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeCerebral artery dissectionDissecting aneurysmparent vessel occlusiontraumatic dissection

Identifiers

PMID29433365
PMCPMC5967189
OpenAlexW2791998331

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.