ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Clinical and neuroimaging precursors in cerebral amyloid angiopathy: impact of the Boston criteria version 2.0.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy: Clinical Presentation, Sequelae and Neuroimaging Features-An Update.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Clinical and neuroimaging precursors in cerebral amyloid angiopathy: impact of the Boston criteria version 2.0.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAlthough the Boston criteria version 2.0 facilitates the sensitivity of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) diagnosis, there are only limited data about precursor symptoms. This study aimed to determine the impact of neurological and imaging features in relation to the time of CAA diagnosis.
methodsPatients diagnosed with probable CAA according to the Boston criteria version 1.5, treated between 2010 and 2020 in our neurocentre, were identified through a keyword search in our medical database. Neuroimaging was assessed using Boston criteria versions 1.5 and 2.0. Medical records with primary focus on the clinical course and the occurrence of transient focal neurological episodes were prospectively evaluated.
resultsThirty-eight out of 81 patients (46.9%) exhibited transient focal neurological episodes, most often sensory (13.2%) or aphasic disorders (13.2%), or permanent deficits at a mean time interval of 31.1 months (SD ±26.3; range 1-108 months) before diagnosis of probable CAA (Boston criteria version 1.5). If using Boston criteria version 2.0, all patients receiving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) met the criteria for probable CAA, and diagnosis could have been made on average 44 months earlier. Four patients were younger than 50 years, three of them with supporting pathology. Cognitive deficits were most common (34.6%) at the time of diagnosis.
conclusionsNon-haemorrhagic MRI markers enhance the sensitivity of diagnosing probable CAA; however, further prospective studies are proposed to establish a minimum age for inclusion. As the neurological overture of CAA may occur several years before clinical diagnosis, early clarification by MRI including haemosensitive sequences are suggested.
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.