ArticleBMJ open2020
Study protocol of validating a numerical model to assess the blood flow in the circle of Willis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of computational fluid dynamics with transcranial Doppler ultrasound in response to physiological stimuli.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2024Article
- The Role of Hemodynamics through the Circle of Willis in the Development of Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review of Numerical Models.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Patient-Specific Cerebral Blood Flow Simulation Based on Commonly Available Clinical Datasets.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Validation of a cerebral hemodynamic model with personalized calibration in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe developed a zero-dimensional (0D) model to assess the patient-specific haemodynamics in the circle of Willis (CoW). Similar numerical models for simulating the cerebral blood flow (CBF) had only been validated qualitatively in healthy volunteers by magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and transcranial Doppler (TCD). This study aims to validate whether a numerical model can simulate patient-specific blood flow in the CoW under pathological conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a diagnostic accuracy study. We aim to collect data from a previously performed prospective study that involved patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) receiving both TCD and brain Computerd Tomography angiography (CTA) at the same day. The cerebral flow velocities are calculated by the 0D model, based on the vessel diameters measured on the CTA of each patient. In this study, TCD is considered the gold standard for measuring flow velocity in the CoW. The agreement will be analysed using Pearson correlation coefficients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen: METc2019/103. The results will be submitted to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8114.
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.