SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Dural arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management for craniocervical junction dural arteriovenous fistulas (CCJ-DAVFs) remains controversial and clinically challenging. We systemically summarized the clinical and angiographic outcomes of microsurgery, embolization, and conservative management.
methodsRelevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane, following PRISMA guidelines. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on the clinical characteristics, management approaches, and clinical and angiographic outcomes.
resultsWe included 13 articles (166 patients). The weighted mean age was 58.9 years (95%CI: 53.2-64.5), 58.8 years (95%CI: 48.4-69.2), and 63.8 years (95%CI: 60.1-67.5), in microsurgery, embolization, and conservative groups respectively, with an overall male sex predominance (microsurgery [n = 51/77, 66.2%], embolization [n = 44/56, 78.6%], and conservative management [n = 6/8, 75.0%]). Patients were managed with microsurgery (n = 80/172, 46.5%), embolization (n = 79/172, 45.9%), and conservative treatment (n = 13/172, 7.6%). Foramen magnum was the most common location (microsurgery [n = 34/77, 44.2%], embolization [n = 31/56, 55.4%], and conservative treatment [n = 3/8, 37.5%]). Vertebral artery was the primary feeder (microsurgery [n = 58/84, 69.1%], embolization [n = 41/86, 47.6%], and conservative treatment [n = 4/7, 57.1%]). Complete fistula obliteration rates were 74.1% (95%CI:52.3-88.2%) in the microsurgery group and 54.9% (95%CI:30.7-77.0%) in the embolization group. Complications rates were 16.2% (95%CI:6.7-34.5%) in the embolization group, 11.6% (95%CI:3.8-30.4%) in the microsurgery group, and 7.7% (95%CI:1.1-39.1%) in the conservative group. Different rates of good clinical outcomes were observed [microsurgery: 66.4% (95%CI:48.1-80.8%), embolization: 51.9% (95%CI:30.8-72.4%), and conservative: 11.6% (95%CI:4.4-27.4%)].
conclusionsIn patients with CCJ-DAVFs, each management approach has its own merits based on the fistula and patient characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39441455What 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.