ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Cerebral artery stump syndrome: a comprehensive pooled analysis of 188 angiographically confirmed cases.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebral artery stump syndrome (CASS), a rare aetiology of ischemic stroke, consists of two subtypes: carotid stump syndrome (CSS) and vertebral artery stump syndrome (VASS). It causes recurrent ischemic events due to thrombus formation. However, selection of therapeutic strategies remains controversial, and large-sample systematic evaluations are lacking. Methods: Relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, and China Biomedical Literature Database (inception to 15 September 2025) were retrieved. Angiography-confirmed case reports and case series of CASS were included. Data on baseline characteristics, clinical features, treatment, and prognosis were extracted. Additionally, three typical cases from our institution were enrolled. Differences in clinical features and recurrence were analyzed. A two-tailed test was performed, with Results: A total of 188 patients (CSS = 103, VASS = 85) from 43 studies were included. Therapeutic modality was the key factor associated with disease recurrence. The recurrence rate with medical treatment alone (19.0%) was significantly higher than that with invasive treatments, including carotid endarterectomy (1.7%), endovascular embolization (0.0%), external carotid stenting (0.0%), and endovascular recanalization (5.4%) ( Conclusion: This study confirmed that embolus source occlusion is central to CASS treatment. Invasive treatment was associated with a lower recurrence rate than medical treatment alone, and anticoagulation was the first choice of medical treatment. Subtype-specific individualized diagnosis and treatment should be implemented for CSS and VASS. This study provides evidence for standardized clinical diagnosis and treatment of CASS.
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.