Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36857052›Full record

ReviewJAMA network open2023

Development and Validation of a Scoring System for Hemorrhage Risk in Brain Arteriovenous Malformations.

Yu Chen, Heze Han, Xiangyu Meng, Hengwei Jin, Dezhi Gao, Li Ma, Ruinan Li, Zhipeng Li, Debin Yan, Haibin Zhang and 19 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

29 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Yu ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Heze HanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiangyu MengDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Medical University, Hebei, China.
Hengwei JinDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Dezhi GaoGamma Knife Center, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Li MaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ruinan LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhipeng LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Debin YanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Shanxi, China.
Haibin ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Kexin YuanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ke WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yukun ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Peking University International Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yang ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Peking University International Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Weitao JinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Peking University International Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Runting LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Fa LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaofeng ChaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Jiangsu, China.
Zhengfeng LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First People's Hospital of Qinzhou, Guangxi, China.
Qiang HaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hao WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xun YeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shuai KangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Youxiang LiDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shibin SunGamma Knife Center, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ali LiuGamma Knife Center, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shuo WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yuanli ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaolin ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Tian Tan Hospital · CNNational Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases · CNPeking University International Hospital · CNBeibu Gulf University · CNHebei Medical University · CNPeking University · CNShanxi Provincial Children's Hospital · CNXuzhou Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The dilemma between natural rupture risk and adverse outcomes of intervention is of major concern for patients with unruptured arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). The existing risk score for AVM rupture includes factors that are controversial and lacks prospective validation. Objective: To develop and robustly validate a reliable scoring system to predict the rupture risk of AVMs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study developed a prediction model derived from a single-center cohort (derivation cohort) and validated in a multicenter external cohort (multicenter external validation cohort) and a cohort of patients receiving conservative treatment management (conservative treatment validation cohort). Patients were recruited from a nationwide multicenter prospective collaboration registry in China. A total of 4135 patients were enrolled in the registry between August 1, 2011, and September 1, 2021. Of those, 3962 patients were included in the study (3585 in the derivation cohort and 377 in the multicenter external validation cohort); 1028 patients from the derivation cohort who had time-to-event data and prerupture imaging results were included in the conservative treatment validation cohort. Data were analyzed from March 10 to June 21, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A scoring system was developed based on risk factors identified from a literature review and a robust selection process. Patients were stratified into different risk groups based on scores to calculate hemorrhage-free probability in future years, and Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to visualize risk stratification. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the discrimination of models. Univariable analyses (logistic regression analysis for descriptive data and Cox regression analysis for survival data) were used to compare baseline information and assess bias. Results: Among 3962 patients (2311 men [58.3%]; median [IQR] age, 26.1 [14.6-35.5] years), 3585 patients (2100 men [58.6%]; median [IQR] age, 25.9 [14.6-35.0] years) were included in the derivation cohort, and 377 patients (211 men [56.0%]; median [IQR] age, 26.4 [14.5-39.2] years) were included in the multicenter external validation cohort. Thirty-six hemorrhages occurred over a median (IQR) follow-up of 4.2 (0.3-6.0) years among 1028 patients in the conservative treatment validation cohort. Four risk factors were used to develop the scoring system: ventricular system involvement, venous aneurysm, deep location, and exclusively deep drainage (VALE). The VALE scoring system performed well in all 3 cohorts, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.78) in the derivation cohort, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89) in the multicenter external validation cohort, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.81) in the conservative treatment validation cohort. The 10-year hemorrhage-free rate was 95.5% (95% CI, 87.1%-100%) in the low-risk group, 92.8% (95% CI, 88.8%-97.0%) in the moderate-risk group, and 75.8% (95% CI, 65.1%-88.3%) in the high-risk group; the model discrimination was significant when comparing these rates between the high-risk group and the low- and moderate-risk groups (P < .001 for both comparisons). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, the VALE scoring system was developed to distinguish rupture risk among patients with AVMs. The stratification of unruptured AVMs may enable patients with low risk of rupture to avoid unnecessary interventions. These findings suggest that the scoring system is a reliable and applicable tool that can be used to facilitate patient and physician decision-making and reduce unnecessary interventions or unexpected AVM ruptures.

Indexed as

Arteriovenous MalformationsBrainAdultChinaConservative TreatmentHumansMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID36857052
PMCPMC9978947
OpenAlexW4322719273

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.