SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography versus digital subtraction angiography for spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
Spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) are underrecognized, and delayed diagnosis can result in irreversible neurological deficits. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) provides noninvasive, high-resolution vascular imaging of SDAVFs. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) is the diagnostic gold standard; however, it is invasive and may yield nondiagnostic results. This is the first study to systematically compare the diagnostic accuracy of DSA and MRA using surgically confirmed SDAVFs as the reference standard. Following PROSPERO registration (CRD42023474375), PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2024 for adult studies reporting MRA and/or DSA alongside surgically confirmed vertebral-level localization, using PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were pooled sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy for lesion detection and localization. Thirteen studies comprising 133 patients met inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 102 patients underwent MRA and 83 underwent DSA. Pooled PPV was 0.806 for MRA (95% CI 0.734-0.879) and 0.873 for DSA (95% CI 0.765-0.982; p = 0.277). Pooled sensitivity was higher for MRA (0.984; 95% CI 0.951-1.00) than DSA (0.860; 95% CI 0.793-0.928; p = 0.008), whereas pooled accuracy favored DSA (0.769; 95% CI 0.670-0.868) over MRA (0.644; 95% CI 0.503-0.784; p = 0.041). Using surgical confirmation as the reference standard, MRA demonstrates superior sensitivity to DSA for SDAVF detection, whereas DSA provides higher accuracy, and both have comparable PPV for precise vertebral‑level localization. Standardized, prospective multicenter studies are warranted to refine integrated imaging strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42624943What 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.