ReviewCurrent medical imaging2025
Navigating the Diagnostic Maze: A Case Report and Narrative Review of Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome
Review in Current medical imaging, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a condition characterized by thunderclap headaches, which are sudden and severe headaches that peak within a few seconds. These headaches present diagnostic difficulties due to their diversity and low specificity, often leading to misdiagnoses and patient dissatisfaction. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 52-year-old woman with a 10-day history of recurrent thunderclap headaches. Initial imaging revealed no abnormalities, but she experienced further episodes of thunderclap headaches during hospitalization. Subsequent neurovascular imaging revealed multiple intracranial stenoses with a "string of beads" appearance, confirming the diagnosis of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. She was treated with nimodipine, and most symptoms had resolved upon discharge, with no recurrence of headache reported during a 3-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Prior reviews on reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome predominantly emphasized isolated symptoms or advanced neuroimaging findings, offering limited applicability in primary care services. More attention should be given to identifying clinical manifestations warranting heightened reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome suspicion.
conclusionEarly recognition of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome counts in primary care services. We proposed a revised diagnostic routine that begins with clinical suspicion prompted by typical manifestations, like recurrent thunderclap headaches, female sex, and specific triggers, and recommends advanced neurovascular imaging when accessible. Extreme headache severity or deviation from prior migraine patterns should raise suspicion for reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome, while diagnostic consideration should still remain in patients with transient neurological deficits, seizures, or cerebrovascular events.
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.