Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003319›Full record

ArticleClinical neuroradiology2021

Casper Versus Precise Stent for the Treatment of Patients with Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.

Nebiyat F Belachew, Severin Baschung, William Almiri, Ruben Encinas, Johannes Kaesmacher, Tomas Dobrocky, Christoph J Schankin, Mathias Abegg, Eike I Piechowiak, Andreas Raabe and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nebiyat F BelachewDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. nebiyatfilate.belachew@insel.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5285-5922
Severin BaschungFaculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
William AlmiriDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Ruben EncinasDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Johannes KaesmacherDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Tomas DobrockyDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Christoph J SchankinDepartment of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Mathias AbeggDepartment of Ophthalmology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Eike I PiechowiakDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Andreas RaabeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jan GrallaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Pasquale MordasiniDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstraße 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe hypothesized that due to its specific characteristics, the Casper

methodsA total of 15 patients with IIH (median age 28.7 years) were reviewed retrospectively. Technical aspects as well as peri- and postinterventional complication rates were examined in patients treated with CP (n = 10) and the PP (n = 5). Improvements in cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure (CSF OP), transstenotic pressure gradient (TSPG) and clinical symptoms were also assessed.

resultsStent delivery was easier and more successful with the CP than the PP (difficult/failed stent delivery 0.0% versus 57.1%) and consequently achieved with less attempts (≥ 2: 0.0% versus 40.0%). No severe peri- or postinterventional complications or instances of in-stent thrombosis and/or stenosis were observed during follow-up. Improvement of CSF OP and TSPG immediately after VSS as well as at 6‑month follow-up was comparable between the CP and PP group. Both groups showed substantial and similar decreases in intensity and frequency of headache. Almost all patients with other IIH-related symptoms showed either improvement or complete resolution of those symptoms after VSS. All patients who were available for interview (n = 12/15) reported a substantial improvement in quality of life.

conclusionVSS using the CP seems to be safe and effective. The CP may reduce the risk of difficult or failed stent delivery in patients with challenging intracranial venous anatomy.

Indexed as

Pseudotumor CerebriAdultCranial SinusesHumansQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeCerebrospinal fluid opening pressurePseudotumor cerebriStent deliveryVenous sinus stenosisVenous sinus stenting

Identifiers

PMID34003319
PMCPMC8463398
OpenAlexW3162753723

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.