ReviewNeuroradiology2021
Improving the accuracy of pre-operative evaluation of neurovascular conflict in trigeminal neuralgia using magnetic resonance subtraction.
Review in Neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of trigeminal neuralgia: a systematic review of the imaging protocol and diagnostic accuracy.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Trigeminal neuralgia: why beautiful images don't always make the diagnosis.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the ability of magnetic resonance (MR) subtraction to evaluate neurovascular conflict (NVC) and to compare it with conventional MR protocols.
methodsThis prospective study included 82 patients with trigeminal neuralgia who underwent microvascular decompression for NVC. All patients had a pre-operative examination using 3T MRI. The MRI protocols used comprised 3D balanced (B)-fast field echo (FFE), 3D steady-state magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and 3D T1-FFE sequences. MR subtraction images were obtained by subtracting native images from B-FFE and steady-state MRA. NVC evaluation was performed using subtraction images (MR subtraction) and combination images (conventional MR protocols using B-FFE and T1-FFE in combination). Clinical assessment of the degree of compression, the type of compressing vessel, and the location of conflict were undertaken by two independent observers. The two methods were then compared using surgical criteria.
resultsMR subtraction exhibited greater accuracy than the conventional method in terms of the estimated severity of conflict (87.80% vs. 57.32%, p < 0.05), and demonstrated better consistency with surgical findings (k = 0.794 vs. k = 0.365, p < 0.05). For the type of compressing vessel and the location of conflict, both methods were highly accurate and agreed to a similar extent with surgical findings (p = 0.987, compressing vessel; p = 0.665, location of conflict).
conclusionMR subtraction proved reliable in NVC pre-operative evaluation, with increased accuracy when estimating severity. This result strongly supports the wider use of MR subtraction as the preferred choice in clinical application.
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.