ReviewNeuroSci2026
Spinal Cavernous Malformations: A Narrative Review.
Review in NeuroSci, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative gait training using the Hybrid Assistive Limb for pediatric spinal intramedullary cavernous malformation: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Intramedullary Spinal Cord Cavernous Angiomas in Familial Cerebral Cavernous Malformations.Genes · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of spinal cord cavernous malformations (SCCMs) involves critical decisions between surgical and conservative treatments, informed by the patient's preoperative neurological status, lesion characteristics, and timing of intervention (early or delayed surgery). Surgery remains an option for symptomatic patients, especially those with significant or progressive neurological deficits and large lesions, aiming for gross total excision to prevent (re)hemorrhage and improve outcomes. Conversely, conservative management is appropriate for small, asymptomatic lesions, with regular monitoring to detect changes necessitating surgery. Studies highlight the benefits and risks of both approaches. Surgical resection typically leads to neurological recovery, although worse preoperative status and larger lesions predict poorer outcomes. Other factors influencing surgical success include lesion location and timing of surgery, with early surgery (within 3 months) generally yielding better long-term outcomes. Future research should focus on the optimal timing of surgery, particularly the benefits of urgent intervention.
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.