ArticleClinics and practice2026
Beyond Coiling: A Comparative Analysis of Survey-Reported Preferences for Endovascular Cerebral Aneurysm Occlusion.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAneurysm treatment options are rapidly evolving, as evidenced by the recent introduction and widespread adoption of flow diversion and intrasaccular devices. However, there is a need to understand how these newer technologies are used for difficult-to-treat aneurysms. The main aims of this study were to investigate the variation in aneurysm treatment recommendations among neurosurgeons, interventional radiologists, and interventional neurologists and to generally describe trends in endovascular treatment.
methodsIn this survey-based study conducted from June to September 2024, participants were presented with clinical vignettes and asked to choose preferred treatment options, with responses analyzed based on demographic variables including specialty, age, and training prior to and after the introduction of flow diversion.
resultsA total of 108 respondents completed the study with a representative mix of specialties-(45 (42.5%) radiologists, 22 (20.8%) neurologists, and 39 (36.8%) neurosurgeons. Sixty-six (61.1%) trained after the introduction of flow diversion. Treatment recommendations were significantly different by specialty (
conclusionThe study highlights the dynamic nature of aneurysm management and considerable variability among different specialties. Further exploration into the rationale for each decision is needed to understand how specialty training affects these decisions.
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.