SynthesisNeuroradiology2025
Reliability and applicability of angiographic outcome scales in WEB device-treated aneurysms: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVarious angiographic assessment scales have been used to report the results of endovascular treatment with the WEB device. We aimed to review the use and reliability of these scales.
methodsWe systematically reviewed studies reporting angiographic outcomes of WEB-treated aneurysms from January 2010 to May 2023. We identified the studies that reported the reliability of the various scales. Data from eligible studies were extracted and evaluated by two independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer.
findingsThe review identified 138 studies that used 12 different occlusion scales. The non-specific Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC) was most commonly used (94/138 (68%)), followed by the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS; 21/138 (15%)) and the Web Occlusion Scale (WOS; 16/138 (12%)), both specifically adapted to the WEB. Six reliability studies were identified, which included 16-30 cases evaluated by few (2-7) raters. Studies were too heterogenous to proceed with a meta-analysis. Substantial agreement in reporting angiographic results was shown in one study using the WOS (K = 0.70; 0.64-0.75), and one using the BOSS (K = 0.82; 0.68-0.96), but only when categories were dichotomized as complete versus incomplete occlusion. Most classifications can be translated into the RROC, allowing comparisons with other devices and treatment modalities. The RROC reached substantial agreement, but only between 2 raters in a small 26-patient study (k = 0.69; 0.46-0.93).
conclusionMore agreement studies are needed to validate the reliability of angiographic outcome scales that can be used to compare WEB with other endovascular or surgical treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39704797What 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.