Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33501562›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2021

Systematic review of brain arteriovenous malformation grading systems evaluating microsurgical treatment recommendation.

Basil E Grüter, Wenhua Sun, Jorn Fierstra, Luca Regli, Menno R Germans

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Basil E GrüterDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse, 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. basil.grueter@ksa.ch.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6314-2482
Wenhua SunDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse, 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jorn FierstraDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse, 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6220-0727
Luca RegliDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse, 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4639-4474
Menno R GermansDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse, 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2185-4526
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When evaluating brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) for microsurgical resection, the natural history of bAVM rupture must be balanced against the perioperative risks. It is therefore adamant to have a reliable surgical grading system, balancing these important factors. This study systematically reviews the literature in order to identify and assess the quality of grading systems with regard to microsurgical bAVM treatment. A systematic literature review was performed to provide an overview of all available bAVM grading systems relevant for microsurgical treatment evaluation and to assess the most comprehensive grading system specifically for each subgroup of bAVM (i.e., unruptured, ruptured, and posterior fossa). Screening of 865 papers revealed thirteen grading systems for bAVM microsurgical risk stratification. Among them, two systems were specifically developed for ruptured bAVM and one specifically for posterior fossa bAVM. With one system being fundamentally different for supratentorial bAVM, the remaining nine systems used the same parameters: "size," "eloquence," "venous drainage," "arterial feeders," "age," "nidus compactness," and "hemorrhagic presentation". This study provides a comprehensive overview of all available bAVM grading systems relevant for surgical risk stratification. Furthermore, in the absence of a universal system appropriate to score all bAVMs, a workflow for selection of the best applicable scoring system in accordance with bAVM subgroups is presented.

Indexed as

Intracranial Arteriovenous MalformationsBrainHumansAVMGradingMicrosurgicalResection

Identifiers

PMID33501562
PMCPMC8490254
OpenAlexW3121325212

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.