ArticleJACC. Asia2026
Predictive Value of Imaging-Based Classifications for Conservative Management Failure in Isolated Superior Mesenteric Artery Dissection.
Article in JACC. Asia, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIsolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (ISMAD) is a relatively uncommon vascular disease with uncertain optimal management. Multiple imaging-based classifications have been developed, but their ability to predict conservative management failure remains unclear.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the predictive performance of 8 ISMAD classification systems for conservative management failure.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included 156 patients with ISMAD from 3 centers in China (October 2009 to February 2023). The median computed tomography angiography follow-up time was 7.9 months (IQR: 3.7-24.3). Patients were classified using 8 systems and grouped as successful (108 of 156, 69.2%) or failed (48 of 156, 30.8%) conservative management. Performance was evaluated by model fit (Akaike Information Criterion, Bayesian Information Criterion), discrimination (C-statistic), net reclassification improvement, calibration, and decision curve analysis.
resultsCompared with the successful group, patients who failed conservative management had a longer duration of abdominal pain before admission (8 [IQR: 3-30] days vs 4 [IQR: 1-11] days; P = 0.0214) and more severe superior mesenteric artery degree of stenosis (0.83 [IQR: 0.69-1.00] vs 0.64 [IQR: 0.52-1.00]; P = 0.00544). Among all classifications, Tan's classification showed good model fit (Akaike Information Criterion = 186; Bayesian Information Criterion = 226), the highest discrimination (C-statistic = 0.750; 95% CI: 0.670-0.830), and the greatest improvement (net reclassification improvement = 0.593; 95% CI: 0.244-0.903). It also demonstrated good calibration and yielded the highest net benefit across clinically relevant threshold probabilities in decision curve analysis.
conclusionsTan's classification showed the best overall performance in predicting conservative management failure and may help guide timely interventions.
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.