ArticleNeuroradiology2021
Physician factors influencing endovascular treatment decisions in the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2021. 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.
- Beyond Coiling: A Comparative Analysis of Survey-Reported Preferences for Endovascular Cerebral Aneurysm Occlusion.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Endovascular Treatment and Microsurgery for Unruptured Middle Cerebral Artery Aneurysms: Long-Term Outcomes over 6-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Predictors of self-care performance in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An overview of decision-making in cerebrovascular treatment strategies: Part I - unruptured aneurysms.Brain & spine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDeciding about whether an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) should be treated or not is challenging because robust data on rupture risks, endovascular treatment complication rates, and treatment success rates are limited. We aimed to investigate how neurointerventionalists conceptually approach endovascular treatment decision-making in UIAs.
methodsIn a web-based international multidisciplinary case-based survey among neurointerventionalists, participants provided their demographics and UIA treatment-volumes, estimated 5-year rupture rates, endovascular treatment complication and success rates and gave their endovascular treatment decision for 15 pre-specified UIA case-scenarios. Differences in estimated 5-year rupture rates, endovascular treatment complication and success rates based on physician and hospital characteristics were evaluated with the Kruskal-Wallis test. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to derive adjusted effect size estimates for predictors of endovascular treatment decision.
resultsTwo hundred-thirty-three neurointerventionalists from 38 countries participated in the survey (median age 47 years [IQR: 41-55], 25/233 [10.7%] females). The ranges of estimates for 5-year rupture risks, endovascular treatment complication rates, and particularly endovascular treatment success rates were wide, especially for UIAs in the posterior circulation. Estimated 5-year rupture risks, endovascular treatment complication and success rates differed significantly based on personal and institutional endovascular UIA treatment volume, and all three estimates were significantly associated with physicians' endovascular treatment decision.
conclusionAlthough several predictors of endovascular treatment decision were identified, there seems to be a high degree of uncertainty when estimating rupture risks, treatment complications, and treatment success for endovascular UIA treatment. More data on the clinical course of UIAs with and without endovascular treatment is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32740709What 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.