ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021
Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification and scoring of factors for ischemic stroke related to cervical arterial dissection: a high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pediatric Arterial Ischemic Stroke.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023Review
- The Clinical Features of Dissection of the Cervical Brain-Supplying Arteries.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Review
- Cervical Artery Dissections: Etiopathogenesis and Management.Vascular health and risk management · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewCervical artery dissection (CAD) is rare, yet it is a common cause of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Historically, some senior clinicians favored anticoagulation in the prevention of stroke due to CAD. Choosing the optimal antithrombotic treatment with either antiplatelet (AP) or anticoagulant (AC) medications remains a challenge. This paper will review the clinical features and imaging of CAD, and the acute treatment and prevention of stroke due to CAD. RECENT
findingsUntil 2015, there were no prospective randomized trials in the optimal antithrombotic management of CAD. The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) trial found that treatment with AC did not lower the risk of subsequent stroke or death at 3 months when compared to AP agents. This led to a paradigm shift in national guidelines. In 2021, The Biomarkers and Antithrombotic Treatment in of Cervical Artery Dissection (TREAT-CAD) trial however did not confirm the non-inferiority of AP therapy in stroke prevention due to CAD. The optimal antithrombotic management for stroke prevention in CAD remains uncertain, while the superiority of anticoagulation has not been established, nor has the non-inferiority of AP agents. The future direction of research should consider early preventative treatment, dual treatment with AP agents, direct oral AC medications, and aggregation of data from existing randomized trials.
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.