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":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","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":"","PubModel":"","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.
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.