ArticleCureus2026
Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score Concordance for Unruptured Aneurysm Treatment at a Quaternary Center.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This retrospective study analyzed records from a quaternary hospital's multidisciplinary team (2002-2020) to investigate patients diagnosed with incidental intracranial aneurysms and their treatment approaches. Methods Clinical decisions (surgery vs. conservative) were compared with retrospectively calculated Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score (UIATS) recommendations to identify variables influencing treatment divergence. Results Agreement between clinical decisions and UIATS was 69.3% (n=70), though Cohen's kappa (0.25) indicated only fair statistical agreement. Discordance was significantly associated with aneurysm diameter (p=0.002), size (p=0.007), morphology (p<0.0001), multiplicity (p<0.0001), and risk scores (p=0.008). Notably, 10.9% (n=11) of patients received conservative care despite UIATS recommending surgery, while 19.8% (n=20) underwent surgery despite conservative recommendations. Conclusion Clinical decisions showed fair agreement with the UIATS. Discrepancies were primarily driven by specific aneurysm characteristics and evolving treatment protocols over the 18-year study period, highlighting that while UIATS is a valuable support tool, individualized multidisciplinary evaluation remains essential.
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.