Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31849580›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019

Endovascular Treatment of Large or Giant Non-saccular Vertebrobasilar Aneurysms: Pipeline Embolization Devices Versus Conventional Stents.

Jiejun Wang, Luqiong Jia, Zhibin Duan, Zhongxiao Wang, Xinjian Yang, Yisen Zhang, Ming Lv

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jiejun WangBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Luqiong JiaBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhibin DuanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Jincheng People's Hospital, Jincheng, China.
Zhongxiao WangBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xinjian YangBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yisen ZhangBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ming LvBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Institute of Neurosurgery · CNZoucheng People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndovascular treatment of large or giant non-saccular vertebrobasilar aneurysms (VBAs) by conventional stents is difficult and has unsatisfactory outcomes. OBJECT: This study was performed to retrospectively analyze the safety and efficacy of a flow diverter in treating large and giant non-saccular VBAs.

methodsWe identified 78 patients with 83 large or giant non-saccular VBAs who accepted endovascular treatment with a pipeline embolization device (PED) or conventional stent from January 2014 to June 2018. The technical details of the procedure, procedure-associated complications, angiographic outcomes, and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

resultsForty-two patients (53.8%, 42/78) with 44 aneurysms (53.0%, 44/83) underwent endovascular treatment with PEDs. Thirty-six patients (46.2%, 36/78) with 39 aneurysms (47.0%, 39/83) underwent endovascular treatment with conventional stents. The complication rate of PED group and conventional stent group was 7.1% (3/42) and 5.6% (2/36), respectively (odds ratio, 0.765; 95% confidence interval, 0.121-4.851;

conclusionEndovascular treatment with a PED is a promising and safe modality for large and giant non-saccular VBAs, and the complication rate is acceptable, compared with conventional endovascular treatment.

Indexed as

conventional stentingendovascular treatmentlarge or giantpipeline embolization devicevertebrobasilar aneurysms

Identifiers

PMID31849580
PMCPMC6892827
OpenAlexW2987531859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.