Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Review of the Risk Factors for Cervical Artery Dissection

Open access
Rubinstein, Sidney M., Peerdeman, Saskia M., van Tulder, Maurits W., Riphagen, Ingrid, Haldeman, Scott·2005·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Cervical artery dissection (CAD) is a recognized cause of ischemic stroke among young and middle-aged individuals. The pathogenesis of dissections is unknown, although numerous constitutional and environmental risk factors have been postulated. To better understand the quality and nature of the research on the pathogenesis of CAD, we performed a systematic review of its risk factors. Methods— PubMed [MEDLINE (1966 to February 22, 2005)] and Embase (1980 to February 22, 2005) were searched to identify studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality of the primary studies. Relevant data were extracted, including the risk factor(s) investigated, characteristics of the study population, and strength of the association(s). Results— Thirty-one case-control studies were included for analysis. Selection bias, lack of control for confounding, and inadequate method of data analysis were the most common identified methodological shortcomings. Strong associations were reported from individual studies for the following risk factors: aortic root diameter >34 mm (odds ratio [OR=14.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 63.6), migraine (OR adj , 3.6; 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.6), relative diameter change (>11.8%) during the cardiac cycle of the common carotid artery (OR adj , 10.0; 95% CI, 1.8 to 54.2), and trivial trauma (in the form of manipulative therapy of the neck) (OR adj , 3.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 11). A weak association was found for homocysteine (2 studies: OR crude , unknown; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.52; OR crude , 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.7), and recent infection (OR adj , 1.60; 95% CI, 0.67 to 3.80). Two studies had conflicting findings for low levels of α 1 -antitrypsin, with the methodologically stronger study suggesting no association with CAD. Conclusions— CAD is a multi-factorial disease. Many of the reviewed studies contained 2 or more major sources of bias commonly found in case-control studies. Only one study (of homocysteine) used healthy controls, a robust sample size, and had a low risk of biased results. The relationship between atherosclerosis and CAD has been insufficiently examined.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000169919.73219.30

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Rubinstein, S. M., Peerdeman, S. M., van Tulder, M. W., Riphagen, I., & Haldeman, S.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2005-07
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
1575-1580
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2098602714
Cited by
375
References
28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Review of the Risk Factors for Cervical Artery Dissection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000169919.73219.30
The paper
Rubinstein, S. M., Peerdeman, S. M., van Tulder, M. W., Riphagen, I., & Haldeman, S. (2005). A Systematic Review of the Risk Factors for Cervical Artery Dissection. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000169919.73219.30

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.