ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Diagnostic analysis of a new sign (superior sagittal sinus distention) on spontaneous intracranial hypotension MR imaging: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC 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
Abstract
objectivesVenous distention may occur in the early stages of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) as a compensatory mechanism. We hypothesized that analysis of superior sagittal sinus distention (SSSD) on T2-weighted axial images, in combination with other imaging findings, could enhance diagnostic accuracy for SIH.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from patients diagnosed with SIH across three institutions. Data from one institution served as the training set, while data from the remaining two institutions constituted the validation set. Patients with non-spontaneous hypotensive headaches from the same institution during the study period were selected as controls. Two senior neuroradiologists and one junior neuroradiologist evaluated SSSD along with four other imaging findings.
resultsIn the training set, senior neuroradiologists demonstrated 84.48% sensitivity in identifying SSSD, significantly higher than other findings, with 89.66% specificity, slightly lower than alternative findings. In the validation set, both sensitivity and specificity for SSSD reached 100%, indicating high diagnostic accuracy. When assessing differences in interpretation among radiologists of varying experience, the junior neuroradiologist showed lower sensitivity (67.24%) for SSSD compared to pachymeningeal thickening. However, their sensitivity improved substantially in the validation set relative to other findings, reaching 60%.
conclusionSSSD demonstrates higher sensitivity compared to other imaging findings and exhibits consistent reliability across different institutions and varying levels of neuroradiologist expertise. When integrated with additional imaging findings, it can substantially improve SIH diagnosis.
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.