SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2023
Potential predictors for progression of moyamoya disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adult Moyamoya Disease and Moyamoya Syndrome: What Is New?Cerebrovascular diseases extra · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The progress of Moyamoya disease (MMD) is often accompanied by the occurrence of new ischemia or hemorrhagic events, which was difficult to predict. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify predictors for progression in MMD patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to December 10th, 2022 for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies reporting predictors of disease progression in MMD patients. The results of each predictor were pooled by meta-analysis and further analyzed by subgroup analysis for predictors of unilateral to bilateral progression of MMD. Results: A total of 842 patients from 12 studies were included. The estimated pooled means indicated lower age (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.55 to -0.03; Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that lower age, family history and contralateral abnormality were associated with progression in MMD patients. The same three factors are associated with the progression of unilateral to bilateral MMD. Further studies are needed to validate our results.
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.