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 : 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":""},"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.

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。
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
Increased burden of enlarged perivascular spaces in patients with patent foramen ovale. Reply: Dementia in spontaneous intracranial hypotension: look at the spine. Results of carotid stenting in patients with contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion: a retrospective single-center analysis and 22 years of experience. Black Bone MRI vs. CT in temporal bone assessment in craniosynostosis: a radiation-free alternative. Reliability and applicability of angiographic outcome scales in WEB device-treated aneurysms: a systematic review.
×
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