ReviewCureus2024
Endovascular Approach in Treating Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracranial vertebral artery stenosis patients that may benefit from stent placement: post-hoc analysis from randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vertebrobasilar insufficiency (VBI) is a significant medical condition that results from a lack of adequate blood flow to the posterior circulation of the brain. The first-line treatment involves the use of antiplatelet therapy, but in cases where patients are not responsive to drug therapy, surgical management is the next viable option. In the past, open endarterectomy was the preferred surgical approach for treating critical VBI patients. However, due to its high mortality rates and severe peri-procedural complications, its usage has decreased. Instead, the endovascular approach has emerged as an alternative surgical option for resolving VBI. This review explores the current literature to assess the effectiveness of endovascular interventions in treating VBI patients. It also highlights potential complications and adverse effects associated with these treatments while identifying gaps in the current research that warrant further investigation. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to extensively search relevant literature on endovascular approaches for treating VBI patients on PubMed, BioMed Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The findings suggest that endovascular treatments have demonstrated significant technical success in treating VBI, with low mortality rates and minor adverse effects, such as intracranial hemorrhage and restenosis. The overall incidence of these complications is relatively low. Combining medical therapies with endovascular interventions has improved outcomes and reduced restenosis rates. However, there are methodological limitations and inconsistencies in the current literature that necessitate further investigation. Future research should focus on larger, randomized clinical trials and direct comparisons with other treatment options to obtain more conclusive evidence.
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.