Reliability and applicability of angiographic outcome scales in WEB device-treated aneurysms: a systematic review.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1007/s00234-024-03526-5
Pierre-Olivier Comby, Stefanos Finitsis, Daniela Iancu, Maria Alexandratou, Anass Benomar, Daniel Roy, Alain Weill, Roland Jabre, Nicolas Lecaros, Hanan Alhazmi, Tim E Darsaut, Jean Raymond
{"title":"Reliability and applicability of angiographic outcome scales in WEB device-treated aneurysms: a systematic review.","authors":"Pierre-Olivier Comby, Stefanos Finitsis, Daniela Iancu, Maria Alexandratou, Anass Benomar, Daniel Roy, Alain Weill, Roland Jabre, Nicolas Lecaros, Hanan Alhazmi, Tim E Darsaut, Jean Raymond","doi":"10.1007/s00234-024-03526-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Various angiographic assessment scales have been used to report the results of endovascular treatment with the WEB device. We aimed to review the use and reliability of these scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed studies reporting angiographic outcomes of WEB-treated aneurysms from January 2010 to May 2023. We identified the studies that reported the reliability of the various scales. Data from eligible studies were extracted and evaluated by two independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The review identified 138 studies that used 12 different occlusion scales. The non-specific Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC) was most commonly used (94/138 (68%)), followed by the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS; 21/138 (15%)) and the Web Occlusion Scale (WOS; 16/138 (12%)), both specifically adapted to the WEB. Six reliability studies were identified, which included 16-30 cases evaluated by few (2-7) raters. Studies were too heterogenous to proceed with a meta-analysis. Substantial agreement in reporting angiographic results was shown in one study using the WOS (K = 0.70; 0.64-0.75), and one using the BOSS (K = 0.82; 0.68-0.96), but only when categories were dichotomized as complete versus incomplete occlusion. Most classifications can be translated into the RROC, allowing comparisons with other devices and treatment modalities. The RROC reached substantial agreement, but only between 2 raters in a small 26-patient study (k = 0.69; 0.46-0.93).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More agreement studies are needed to validate the reliability of angiographic outcome scales that can be used to compare WEB with other endovascular or surgical treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":19422,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":"191-199"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-024-03526-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Various angiographic assessment scales have been used to report the results of endovascular treatment with the WEB device. We aimed to review the use and reliability of these scales.

Methods: We systematically reviewed studies reporting angiographic outcomes of WEB-treated aneurysms from January 2010 to May 2023. We identified the studies that reported the reliability of the various scales. Data from eligible studies were extracted and evaluated by two independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer.

Findings: The review identified 138 studies that used 12 different occlusion scales. The non-specific Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC) was most commonly used (94/138 (68%)), followed by the Bicêtre Occlusion Scale Score (BOSS; 21/138 (15%)) and the Web Occlusion Scale (WOS; 16/138 (12%)), both specifically adapted to the WEB. Six reliability studies were identified, which included 16-30 cases evaluated by few (2-7) raters. Studies were too heterogenous to proceed with a meta-analysis. Substantial agreement in reporting angiographic results was shown in one study using the WOS (K = 0.70; 0.64-0.75), and one using the BOSS (K = 0.82; 0.68-0.96), but only when categories were dichotomized as complete versus incomplete occlusion. Most classifications can be translated into the RROC, allowing comparisons with other devices and treatment modalities. The RROC reached substantial agreement, but only between 2 raters in a small 26-patient study (k = 0.69; 0.46-0.93).

Conclusion: More agreement studies are needed to validate the reliability of angiographic outcome scales that can be used to compare WEB with other endovascular or surgical treatments.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
血管造影结果量表在 WEB 装置治疗动脉瘤中的可靠性和适用性:系统性综述。
目的:使用各种血管造影评估量表来报告使用WEB设备进行血管内治疗的结果。我们的目的是回顾这些量表的使用和可靠性。方法:我们系统地回顾了2010年1月至2023年5月关于血管造影结果的研究报告。我们确定了报告各种量表可靠性的研究。从符合条件的研究中提取数据并由两名独立审稿人进行评估,差异由第三名审稿人解决。研究结果:本综述确定了138项研究,使用了12种不同的咬合量表。最常用的是非特异性Raymond-Roy咬合分类(RROC)(94/138(68%)),其次是Bicêtre咬合量表评分(BOSS;21/138(15%))和Web Occlusion Scale (WOS;16/138(12%)),两者都专门适应WEB。我们确定了6项可靠性研究,其中包括16-30例由少数(2-7)评分者评估的病例。研究的异质性太大,无法进行荟萃分析。一项使用WOS的研究报告了血管造影结果的基本一致(K = 0.70;0.64-0.75),一个使用BOSS (K = 0.82;0.68-0.96),但仅当分类分为完全闭塞和不完全闭塞时。大多数分类可以翻译成RROC,允许与其他设备和治疗方式进行比较。RROC达到了实质性的一致,但仅在一项26例患者的小型研究中2名评分者之间(k = 0.69;0.46 - -0.93)。结论:需要更多的一致性研究来验证血管造影结果量表的可靠性,该量表可用于与其他血管内或手术治疗进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroradiology
Neuroradiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
214
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroradiology aims to provide state-of-the-art medical and scientific information in the fields of Neuroradiology, Neurosciences, Neurology, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, and related medical specialities. Neuroradiology as the official Journal of the European Society of Neuroradiology receives submissions from all parts of the world and publishes peer-reviewed original research, comprehensive reviews, educational papers, opinion papers, and short reports on exceptional clinical observations and new technical developments in the field of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention. The journal has subsections for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Advanced Neuroimaging, Paediatric Neuroradiology, Head-Neck-ENT Radiology, Spine Neuroradiology, and for submissions from Japan. Neuroradiology aims to provide new knowledge about and insights into the function and pathology of the human nervous system that may help to better diagnose and treat nervous system diseases. Neuroradiology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE core practices. Neuroradiology prefers articles that are free of bias, self-critical regarding limitations, transparent and clear in describing study participants, methods, and statistics, and short in presenting results. Before peer-review all submissions are automatically checked by iThenticate to assess for potential overlap in prior publication.
期刊最新文献
A rare presentation of acute onset metronidazole-induced leukoencephalopathy with rapid resolution: a case report. Local artery geometry characteristics associated with middle cerebral atherosclerotic stenosis. Eighteen-year journey in endovascular management of cavernous sinus DAVFs: advances, outcomes, and lessons learned. Recurrence patterns in pediatric intracranial ependymal neoplasm: a systematic imaging work-up. White matter injuries mediate brain age effects on cognitive function in cerebral small vessel disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1