ArticleBrain & spine2023
Cavernous malformations of the central nervous system: An international consensus statement.
Article in Brain & spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Protective Therapies on Hemorrhagic Events in Cerebral Cavernous Malformations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
- Radiation-induced cavernous malformation in the brainstem after Gamma Knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: A case report and literature review.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Controversies in Cavernous Malformation Management: A Comprehensive Review of Current Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Recent novelties in research and management of cerebrospinal cavernous malformations.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 17 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cavernous malformations (CM) of the central nervous system constitute rare vascular lesions. They are usually asymptomatic, which has allowed their management to become quite debatable. Even when they become symptomatic their optimal mode and timing of treatment remains controversial. Research question: A consensus may navigate neurosurgeons through the decision-making process of selecting the optimal treatment for asymptomatic and symptomatic CMs. Material and methods: A 17-item questionnaire was developed to address controversial issues in relation to aspects of the treatment, surgical planning, optimal surgical strategy for specific age groups, the role of stereotactic radiosurgery, as well as a follow-up pattern. Consequently, a three-stage Delphi process was ran through 19 invited experts with the goal of reaching a consensus. The agreement rate for reaching a consensus was set at 70%. Results: A consensus for surgical intervention was reached on the importance of the patient's age, symptomatology, and hemorrhagic recurrence; and the CM's location and size. The employment of advanced MRI techniques is considered of value for surgical planning. Observation for asymptomatic eloquent or deep-seated CMs represents the commonest practice among our panel. Surgical resection is considered when a deep-seated CM becomes symptomatic or after a second bleeding episode. Asymptomatic, image-proven hemorrhages constituted no indication for surgical resection for our panelists. Consensus was also reached on not resecting any developmental venous anomalies, and on resecting the associated hemosiderin rim only in epilepsy cases. Discussion and conclusion: Our Delphi consensus provides an expert common practice for specific controversial issues of CM patient management.
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.