Dedicated Guidelines for Arterial Dissections: More Specifics Amid Uncertainty.

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.

1. Difficulty and prospects of endovascular treatment for spontaneous intracranial artery dissection.Frontiers in neurology · 2025
   Review
2. Endovascular stenting for extracranial internal carotid artery dissection - single-centre experience and literature overview.Polish journal of radiology · 2025
   Article
3. Unique Presentation of Vertebral Artery Dissection: A Case Report.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2025
   Article
4. Hypointense signal lesion on susceptibility-weighted imaging as a potential indicator of vertebral artery dissection in medullary infarction.Scientific reports · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  ESO guideline for the management of extracranial and intracranial artery dissection.2021

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as