ArticleStroke and vascular neurology2025
Clinical outcomes of endovascular interventions for cerebral venous thrombosis in Japan: a nationwide retrospective study.
Article in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2025. 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.
- Glucocorticoids combined with anticoagulation modulate the central NLRP3/NETosis inflammatory process in patients with severe cerebral venous thrombosis: a human mechanistic exploratory study.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: Pathophysiologic Insights, Clinical Evaluation Tools, and Novel Therapeutic Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cerebral venous thrombosis: Current management, recent advances and future directions.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare but serious disease. Despite anticoagulation being the cornerstone therapy, some patients experience worsening disease, necessitating alternative treatment. Endovascular treatment is an anticipated option with an uncertain clinical relevance. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effects and efficacy of endovascular therapy and identify patient populations that may benefit from treatment. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study examined patient data from April 2014 to March 2022 that were extracted from a nationwide Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores and post-hospitalisation complications of cerebral infarction and intracranial haemorrhage. Severity was adjusted using a generalised linear mixed model, and propensity-score matching was employed to compare outcomes between treatment groups.
resultsThe study included 2901 patients; 240 patients in the endovascular treatment group were matched with 240 patients in the standard treatment group. After adjusting for background factors, endovascular treatment did not improve in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.16) or the mRS score (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.23). No subpopulations that could benefit from endovascular treatment were identified. Post-hospitalisation cerebral infarction and intracranial haemorrhage did not increase with endovascular treatment (0.8% in the endovascular treatment group vs 1.2% in the standard treatment group).
conclusionEndovascular treatment showed no significant benefit for patients with CVT, indicating that treatment guidelines need to be refined. Our findings can guide clinical decisions and suggest the necessity of further research on potential benefits in specific subpopulations.
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.