ArticleBrain & spine2024
European survey on follow-up strategies for unruptured intracranial aneurysms.
Article in Brain & spine, 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.
- Risk factor analysis of growing unruptured intracranial aneurysms: A single center cohort study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
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
Introduction: The increasing detection rates of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) pose a challenge for both neurovascular centers, tasked with managing a growing pool of patients requiring regular monitoring with imaging, and the healthcare system that must bear the costs of such surveillance. While there is consensus on the need for follow-up of UIA, uncertainties persist regarding the optimal cessation of surveillance, especially when considering diverse patient risk factors and, notably, in cases of treated aneurysms with stable rest perfusion. Detailed guidelines on UIA follow-up are currently lacking, exacerbating these challenges. Research question: We sought to investigate European strategies for follow-up of untreated, microsurgically and endovascularly treated UIA. Material and methods: An online survey consisting of 15 questions about follow-up management of UIA was sent out to the cerebrovascular section of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). Results: The survey response rate was 27.3% (68/249). There was consenus upon the necessity for long-term follow-up of UIA (100% [n = 68]). The recommendation to perform follow-up was inversely correlated with patient age and more prevalent among endovascularly compared to microsurgically treated patients (92.6% [n = 63] vs. 70.6% [n = 48]). A majority recommended continued follow-up of treated aneurysms with stable rest perfusion, with lifelong surveillance in patients under 60 years and continuation for 5-10 years in patients aged 61-80, irrespective of whether they underwent microsurgical (38.3% [n = 23]; 33.3% [n = 20]) or endovascular (41.9% [n = 26]; 30.6% [n = 19]) treatment. Discussion and conclusion: This survey confirmed a European consensus on the necessity of long-term follow-up for untreated UIA. However, significant variations in follow-up strategies, especially for treated UIA and post-treatment rest perfusion, were noted. Despite limited evidence suggesting low risk from aneurysm remnants, respondents favored long-term follow-up, highlighting uncertainty in management. This underscores the need for collaborative research on aneurysm remnants and standardized follow-up protocols for UIA in Europe.
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.