ArticleWorld neurosurgery2019
Biopsy During Minimally Invasive Intracerebral Hemorrhage Clot Evacuation.
Article in World neurosurgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Long-term functional outcome following minimally invasive endoscopic intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe safety and efficacy of brain parenchyma biopsy during minimally invasive (MIS) intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) clot evacuation has not been previously reported. The objective of this study was to establish the safety and diagnostic efficacy of brain biopsy during MIS ICH clot evacuation and to validate the modified Boston criteria as a predictor of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) in this cohort.
methodsFrom October 2016 to March 2018, superficial and perihematomal biopsies were collected for 40 patients undergoing MIS ICH clot evacuation and analyzed by the pathology department to assess for various ICH etiologies. Additionally, the admission magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan of each patient was analyzed and evaluated for the likelihood of a CAA etiology based on the modified Boston criteria. Student t test was used to analyze intergroup differences in continuous variables, and a 2-tailed Fisher exact test was used to determine intergroup differences of categorical variables, with significance set at P < 0.05.
resultsTwo of the 40 patients (5%) experienced postoperative rebleed. Four of the 40 patients (10%) had evidence of CAA on biopsy. Patients with CAA on biopsy were older (P = 0.005) and had a higher prevalence of parietal lobe (P = 0.02) and occipital lobe (P = 0.001) hemorrhage. The modified Boston criteria had a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.6%-100%) and a specificity of 72.2% (95% CI, 54.6%-84.2%) for predicting CAA on biopsy.
conclusionsBrain biopsy in MIS ICH clot evacuation is safe and allows for the diagnosis of various ICH etiologies.
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.