ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Vein of Galen aneurysmal malformation: does size affect outcome?
Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo validate a semiautomated method for segmenting vein of Galen aneurysmal malformations (VGAM) and to assess the relationship between VGAM volume and other angioarchitectural features, cardiological findings, and outcomes.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we selected all subjects with VGAM admitted to the Gaslini Children's Hospital between 2009 and 2022. Clinical data were retrieved from electronic charts. We compared 3D-Slicer segmented VGAM volumes obtained by two independent observers using phase-contrast MR venography to those obtained with manual measurements performed on T2-weighted images. The relationship between VGAM volumes and clinical and neuroimaging features was then explored.
resultsForty-three subjects with VGAM (22 males, mean age 6.56 days) were included in the study. Manual and semiautomated VGAM volumes were well correlated for both readers (r = 0.86 and 0.82, respectively). Regarding reproducibility, the inter-rater interclass correlation coefficients were 0.885 for the manual method and 0.992 for the semiautomated method (p < 0.001). The standard error for repeated measures was lower for the semiautomated method (0.04 versus 0.40 of manual method). Higher VGAM volume was associated with superior sagittal sinus narrowing, jugular bulb stenosis, and aqueductal stenosis (p < 0.05). A weak correlation was found between VGAM volume and straight sinus dilatation (r = 0.331) and superior sagittal sinus index (r = - 0.325). No significant associations were found with cardiac findings, post-embolization complications, and outcome (p > 0.05).
conclusionsSemiautomated VGAM volumetry is feasible and reliable with improved reproducibility compared to the manual method. VGAM volume is not a prognostic factor for clinical outcome, but it is related to other venous findings with potential hemodynamic effects.
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.