The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms With Flow Diverters: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background and Purpose—: Flow diverters are important tools in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. However, their impact on aneurysmal occlusion rates, morbidity, mortality, and complication rates is not fully examined. Methods—: We conducted a systematic review of the literature searching multiple databases for reports on the treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow-diverter devices. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes of aneurysmal occlusion rates at 6 months, and procedure-related morbidity, mortality, and complications across studies. Results—: A total of 29 studies were included in this analysis, including 1451 patients with 1654 aneurysms. Aneurysmal complete occlusion rate was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70%–81%). Procedure-related morbidity and mortality were 5% (95% CI, 4%–7%) and 4% (95% CI, 3%–6%), respectively. The rate of postoperative subarachnoid hemorrhage was 3% (95% CI, 2%–4%). Intraparenchymal hemorrhage rate was 3% (95% CI, 2%–4%). Perforator infarction rate was 3% (95% CI, 1%–5%), with significantly lower odds of perforator infarction among patients with anterior circulation aneurysms compared with those with posterior circulation aneurysms (odds ratio, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.08; P <0.0001). Ischemic stroke rate was 6% (95% CI, 4%–9%), with significantly lower odds of perforator infarction among patients with anterior circulation aneurysms compared with those with posterior circulation aneurysms (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08–0.27; P <0.0001). Conclusions—: This meta-analysis suggests that treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow-diverter devices is feasible and effective with high complete occlusion rates. However, the risk of procedure-related morbidity and mortality is not negligible. Patients with posterior circulation aneurysms are at higher risk of ischemic stroke, particularly perforator infarction. These findings should be considered when considering the best therapeutic option for intracranial aneurysms.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cited by
Becske, T., Brinjikji, W., Potts, M. B., Kallmes, D. F., Shapiro, M., Moran, C. J., Levy, E. I., McDougall, C. G., Szikora, I., Lanzino, G., et al. (2017) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw014 · Cited by 447
Self-citationHanel, R. A., Kallmes, D. F., Lopes, D. K., Nelson, P. K., Siddiqui, A., Jabbour, P., Pereira, V. M., Szikora István, I., Zaidat, O. O., Bettegowda, C., et al. (2020) · Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015091 · Cited by 313
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Brinjikji, W., Murad, M. H., Lanzino, G., Cloft, H. J., & Kallmes, D. F.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 442-447
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2158557877
- Cited by
- 900
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 50.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.