Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40358714›Full record

SynthesisNeuroradiology2025

Hyperintense acute reperfusion marker and gadolinium leakage in ocular structures in stroke: a systematic review.

Camile Bousfiha, Luigi Francesco Saccaro, Arturo Consoli, Fernando Pico

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Camile BousfihaDepartment of Neurology and Stroke Center, Mignot Hospital, Versailles, France. camile.bousfiha@icm-institute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1552-3870
Luigi Francesco SaccaroPsychiatry Department, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6703-6890
Arturo ConsoliDepartment of Stroke and Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6640-8541
Fernando PicoDepartment of Neurology and Stroke Center, Mignot Hospital, Versailles, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3329-5365

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Hyperintense Acute Reperfusion Marker (HARM) and Gadolinium Leakage in Ocular Structures (GLOS) are pivotal radiological findings in post-contrast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery imaging (pcFLAIR), attesting to gadolinium leakage into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in various neurological disorders. Often observed following acute strokes, HARM and GLOS, however, exhibit considerable variability in their prevalence ranging from 5.5 to 85% and 30-76%, respectively. Given their similarity and association of HARM with poor outcomes in stroke, accurately evaluating these markers may be crucial for advancing our understanding of stroke pathophysiology and improving clinical management. Our work aims to identify the major methodological challenges and confounding factors limiting the understanding of HARM and GLOS in stroke.

methodsTo address these issues, we thoroughly conducted a literature search in Embase, Scopus, and PubMed until July 2022. Our search yielded 38 stroke studies, with only 6 evaluating GLOS. Guided by major findings, we adapted the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for bias risk assessment. Effect estimates were synthetized considering cohort size, statistical significance, and bias risk.

resultsMethodological issues emerged from the lack of time-specific data, omission of differential CSF hyperintensities, imprecise definitions, and overlooking of adjusting variables like assessment timing, contrast dosages or renal function. Discrepancy results mainly arise from an inadequate time window of investigation, and further research should stratify patients based on the timing of gadolinium injection.

conclusionOur findings emphasize the importance of a more detailed exploration of their timing and localization, rather than simply their binary presence, extent, or severity.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaEyeGadoliniumMagnetic Resonance ImagingStrokeHumansContrast MediaGadoliniumBlood-brain barrier disruptionCerebrospinal enhancementGadolinium leakage in ocular structuresGlymphatic dysfunctionHyperintense acute reperfusion markerStroke

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.