ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction: a review.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Craniocervical junction (CCJ) arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are rare vascular malformations and are characterized by complex angioarchitecture and variable clinical presentation. The most common manifestations are subarachnoid hemorrhage and venous hypertensive myelopathy, with hemorrhagic presentation more often associated with ascending intradural or intracranial venous drainage, venous varices, aneurysmal structures, and spinal arterial feeders. Because the natural history remains incompletely defined, accurate angiographic characterization is essential for classification and treatment planning. Microsurgery remains the main treatment for most CCJ AVFs because of its high obliteration rate and durability, whereas endovascular treatment is useful in selected anatomically favorable lesions but may be limited by incomplete occlusion, recurrence, and ischemic risk in complex cases. Prognosis depends on presentation, lesion subtype, venous drainage pattern, age, baseline neurological status, timing of diagnosis, and treatment-related complications; hemorrhagic onset generally has a better outcome than venous hypertensive myelopathy. Structured angiographic follow-up remains important after treatment.
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.