Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39356412›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2024

Physiological provocation compared to acetazolamide in the assessment of cerebral hemodynamics: a case report.

Alexander Cuculiza Henriksen, Gerda Krog Thomsen, Gitte M Knudsen, Trine Stavngaard, Sverre Rosenbaum, Lisbeth Marner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alexander Cuculiza HenriksenDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gerda Krog ThomsenNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gitte M KnudsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Trine StavngaardDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sverre Rosenbaum *Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lisbeth Marner *Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. lisbeth.marner@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5843-5742

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSevere large vessel disease may lead to cerebral hemodynamic failure that critically impairs cerebral blood flow (CBF) regulation elevating the risk of ischemic events. Assessment of the condition is often based on changes in CBF during vasodilatation; however, pharmacologically induced vasodilation does not reflect the physiological condition during an ischemic event caused by hemodynamic failure. We compared a [ CASE PRESENTATION: A single patient presenting with limb-shaking TIA underwent CT, Digital Subtraction Angiography, and two different modalities of cerebral perfusion scans: [

conclusionsThe observed discrepancy in compromised areas during physiological provocation compared to pharmacological induced vasodilation questions the use of an unphysiological stressor for assessment of cerebrovascular hemodynamics. A physiological provocation test may achieve more clinically relevant evaluation.

Indexed as

BrainCerebral perfusionCerebral perfusion imagingCerebrovascular reactivityHemodynamic failureLimb shaking TIAPositron emission tomographySingle photon emission computed tomographyStroke

Identifiers

PMID39356412
PMCPMC11447169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.