SynthesisNeuroradiology2025
Hyperintense acute reperfusion marker and gadolinium leakage in ocular structures in stroke: 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40358714What 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.