Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30410529›Full record

ReviewInterventional neurology2018

Stent Survival and Stent-Adjacent Stenosis Rates following Venous Sinus Stenting for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hamidreza Saber, Whitfield Lewis, Mahsa Sadeghi, Gary Rajah, Sandra Narayanan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interventional neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Intracranial venous pressures and endovascular outcomes in pediatric patients with cerebral venous sinus stenosis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Self-reported cognitive dysfunction improves following venous sinus stenting.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Direct 3D rotational venography: Insights in optimizing visualization.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Association of post-intervention pressure gradient with symptom-free at 6 months in idiopathic intracranial hypertension with venous sinus stenosis treated by stenting.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. New Options (or not) for Treatment of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Management of idiopathic intracranial hypertension in children utilizing venous sinus stenting.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2021
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hamidreza SaberDepartment of Neurology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Whitfield LewisDepartment of Neurology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Mahsa SadeghiDepartment of Neurology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Gary RajahDepartment of Neurosurgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Sandra NarayananDepartment of Neurology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Wayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is characterized by an elevated intracranial pressure without any identifiable causative factor such as an intracranial mass. Dural venous sinus stenosis (DVSS) has been suggested to be associated with IIH.

objectiveWe performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to determine clinical outcomes as well as stent survival and stent-adjacent stenosis rates in patients undergoing DVSS for the management of medically refractory IIH.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify prospective or retrospective cohorts or case series of patients with IIH treated with DVSS between 2000 and 2017.

resultsA total of 473 patients were included from 24 studies. Headache was present in 429 (91.8%) patients and resolved or improved in 319/413 (77.2%) after the procedure. Headache, papilledema, visual acuity, and tinnitus improved in 256/330 (77.6%), 247/288 (85.8%), 121/172 (70.3%), and 93/110 (84.5%) patients following DVSS at the final follow-up (mean of 18.3 months). In a meta-analysis of 395 patients with available follow-up data on stenting outcome (mean of 18.9 months), the stent survival and stent-adjacent stenosis rates were 84% (95% confidence interval [CI] 79-87%) and 14% (95% CI 11-18%), respectively. The rate of major neurological complications was less than 2%.

conclusionStent-adjacent stenosis is an important complication following venous stenting in patients with DVSS and IIH. Further studies are needed to identify determinants of stent-adjacent stenosis and stent nonsurvival.

Indexed as

Idiopathic intracranial hypertensionMeta-analysisSystematic reviewVenous sinus stenting

Identifiers

PMID30410529
PMCPMC6216784
OpenAlexW2886275749

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.