Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41718146›Full record

ReviewNeuroSci2026

Spinal Cavernous Malformations: A Narrative Review.

Aleeza Safdar, Ali Osman, Rouzbeh Motiei-Langroudi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aleeza SafdarDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.
Ali OsmanHeritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Dublin, OH 43016, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-9730-9123
Rouzbeh Motiei-LangroudiDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cavernomacavernous malformationspinal cordtreatment

Identifiers

PMID41718146
PMCPMC12921962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.