ReviewStroke2026
Estimating Rupture Risk of Intracranial Aneurysms: What We Know, What We Do Not Know, and What We Need.
Review in Stroke, 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.
- Multi-Omics Genome-Wide to Explore the Formation and Development Targets for Intracranial Aneurysms.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms requires balancing the risk of aneurysm rupture against the risk of procedural complications. Estimates of rupture risk stem from a few landmark natural history studies whose findings differ substantially, creating uncertainty for clinical decision-making. This review appraises these studies, highlighting areas of agreement and contradiction to inform future directions. Across studies, short-term rupture risk is low and increases with aneurysm size. The magnitude of risk varies (0.20%-1.85% at 1 year). These discrepancies likely arise from methodological challenges inherent to natural history research, including selection, crossover, incomplete follow-up, and regional variation. The effects of these factors are difficult to disentangle due to confounding. Rupture risk is highest in Finnish studies, followed by Japanese, then other international cohorts. This geographic pattern is reversed for the treatment rate. Rupture risk also shows a strong inverse relationship with treatment rate (
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.