ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Penetrating injury to the head and neck: influence of cerebrovascular injury on outcomes and agreement between vascular imaging modalities.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Occult ascending pharyngeal artery pseudoaneurysm masked by CTA artifact after penetrating facial trauma: a case report.Journal of surgical 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
objectiveDelays in identification and management of penetrating cerebrovascular injury (PCVI) can lead to poor outcomes. With improvements in computed tomography angiography (CTA) there remains controversy regarding the role of digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
methodsConsecutive patients with penetrating injury to the head or neck evaluated with both CTA and DSA at a single level 1 trauma center were included. CTA's performances for identifying an injury, identifying the correct vessel, and correctly classifying the injury with DSA as the gold standard were determined. Outcomes included favorable clinical outcome at discharge (Modified Rankin Scale 0-2), length of stay (LOS), and routine discharge disposition.
resultsA total of 95 patients were included. CTA identified 69 injuries in 54 patients while DSA identified 79 injuries in 58 patients. For identifying an arterial injury, CTA was 72.6% accurate, 74.1% sensitive, and 70.3% specific. The PPV was 79.6% and the NPV was 63.4%. For identifying the correct vessel injured, CTA was 96.2% accurate and the Cohen's Kappa (K) was 0.95. For characterizing the injury type, CTA was 70.0% accurate and K was 0.58. Biffl grade 5 injuries were associated with greater odds of unfavorable clinical outcome at discharge (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.05-13.35; p = 0.046). Biffl grade 4 injuries were associated with greater odds of nonroutine discharge disposition (OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.23-18.37; p = 0.029).
conclusionCTA had low sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV for detecting PCVI. This highlights potential limitations of CTA as a screening tool and strengthens the role of DSA for patients with penetrating head and neck injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41629514What 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.