Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30554398›Full record

ReviewTranslational stroke research2019

Management of Cerebral Microbleeds in Clinical Practice.

Ashfaq Shuaib, Naveed Akhtar, Saadat Kamran, Richard Camicioli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational stroke research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Can CHAFrontiers in neurology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ashfaq ShuaibStroke Program, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2G3, Canada. ashfaq.shuaib@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3380-7068
Naveed AkhtarThe Neuroscience Institute (Stroke Center for Excellence), Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, 3050, Qatar.
Saadat KamranThe Neuroscience Institute (Stroke Center for Excellence), Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, 3050, Qatar.
Richard CamicioliStroke Program, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2G3, Canada.
Hamad Medical Corporation · QAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are very frequent diagnoses with MRI imaging in the elderly or in patients with cerebral infarction, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and dementia. The mechanisms for CMBs are not fully understood but may be secondary to injury to the vascular wall from long-standing hypertension or amyloid deposition in the tissue. The presence of CMB increases the risk for stroke, dementia, and death. The increasing number of CMBs is also associated with a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications with the long-term use of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and in patients requiring thrombolysis for acute stroke. The presence of CMBs is however not a contraindication for anticoagulation or thrombolysis as was recently shown from the results of the CROMIS-2 study. This review will summarize our current understanding of the natural history of CMBs and offer suggestions on the best management in common clinical settings.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsBrainBrain IschemiaCerebral HemorrhageHumansStrokeAnticoagulantsCerebral microbleedsDementiaMRIStroke

Identifiers

PMID30554398
OpenAlexW2905358687

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.