SynthesisStroke and vascular neurology2026
Risk factors for cervical artery dissection: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between spinal manipulative therapy and cervical artery dissection in patients with neck pain or headache: a retrospective cohort study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Clarifying causality and reporting in pediatric vertebral artery dissection.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Retinal and Choroidal Vascular Alterations in Carotid Dissection Versus Atherosclerosis: Insights Into Divergent Ischemic Mechanisms.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Observational
- Bilateral internal carotid artery dissection in a specific unbalanced diet: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical artery dissection (CAD) is a rare cause of stroke. This is an update of an earlier systematic review, which focuses on the risk of CAD in the general population. The objective was to identify the risk factors for CAD.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science on 20 September 2024. Observational studies (cohort, case-control studies and case-crossover studies) that studied patients with CAD and a control group were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-E tool, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The results were stratified by healthy controls (primary analyses) and other control groups, notably ischaemic non-CAD stroke (secondary analyses).
findingsIn total, 128 study reports were identified, of which 54 used one or more healthy control groups. Of these reports, 49 (91%) used a case-control design. The risk of bias was generally high (93%). For the following categories, effects were identified: (1) genetic factors or factors with a familial predisposition: migraine, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), TT homozygosity, matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) concentration, and connective tissue disorders; (2) external factors: recent infection, winter or autumn-winter season and oral contraceptive use; (3) minor trauma; (4) cardiovascular factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, relative vasodilatation of internal carotid, coronary artery disease and other cardiac diseases. For other risk factors (5), there were no significant pooled estimates. The certainty of the evidence was moderate for migraine and MTHFR TT, low for minor trauma and very low certainty for all others.
interpretationThis is the first review that comprehensively examined the risk of CAD in the general population. Genetic factors, cardiovascular risk factors, recent infection and minor trauma are risk factors for CAD. Caution is needed in interpretation as the evidence is overall low to very low certainty, except for migraine and MTHFR TT homozygosity.
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.