↓ Skip to main content

Management of Tiny Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Neurology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
90 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Management of Tiny Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis
Published in
JAMA Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3232
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ajay Malhotra, Xiao Wu, Howard P. Forman, Charles C. Matouk, Dheeraj Gandhi, Pina Sanelli

Abstract

Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are relatively common in the general population and are being increasingly diagnosed; a significant proportion are tiny (≤3 mm) aneurysms. There is significant heterogeneity in practice and lack of clear guidelines on the management of incidental, tiny UIAs. It is important to quantify the implications of different management strategies in terms of health benefits to patients. To evaluate the effectiveness of routine treatment (aneurysm coiling) vs 3 strategies for imaging surveillance compared with no preventive treatment or routine follow-up of tiny UIAs. A decision-analytic model-based comparative effectiveness analysis was conducted from May 1 to June 30, 2017, using inputs from the medical literature. PubMed searches were performed to identify relevant literature for all key model inputs, each of which was derived from the clinical study with the most robust data and greatest applicability. Analysis included 10 000 iterations simulating adult patients with incidental detections of UIAs 3 mm or smaller and no history of subarachnoid hemorrhage. The following 5 management strategies for tiny UIAs were evaluated: annual magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) screening, biennial MRA screening, MRA screening every 5 years, aneurysm coiling and follow-up, and no treatment or preventive follow-up. A Markov decision model for lifetime rupture was constructed from a societal perspective per 10 000 patients with incidental, tiny UIAs. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Probabilistic, 1-way, and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed. In this analysis of 10 000 iterations simulating adult patients with a mean age of 50 years, the base-case calculation shows that the management strategy of no treatment or preventive follow-up has the highest health benefit (mean [SD] quality-adjusted life-years, 19.40 [0.31]). Among the management strategies that incorporate follow-up imaging, MRA every 5 years is the best strategy with the next highest effectiveness (mean [SD] quality-adjusted life-years, 18.05 [0.62]). The conclusion remains robust in probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses. No routine follow-up remains the optimal strategy when the annual growth rate and risk of rupture of growing aneurysms are varied. When the annual risk of rupture of nongrowing UIAs is less than 1.7% (0.23% in base case scenario), no follow-up is the optimal strategy. If annual risk of rupture is more than 1.7%, coiling should be performed directly. Given the current literature, no preventive treatment or imaging follow-up is the most effective strategy in patients with aneurysms that are 3 mm or smaller, resulting in better health outcomes. More aggressive imaging surveillance for aneurysm growth or preventive treatment should be reserved for patients with a high risk of rupture. Given these findings, it is important to critically evaluate the appropriateness of current clinical practices, and potentially determine specific guidelines to reflect the most effective management strategy for patients with incidental, tiny UIAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Other 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 50%
Neuroscience 11 12%
Engineering 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2023.
All research outputs
#555,951
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Neurology
#745
of 5,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,848
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Neurology
#20
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.