Noninvasive Angiographic Results of Clipped or Coiled Intracranial Aneurysms: An Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability Study

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Murayama Y,
   2. Takao H,
   3. Ishibashi T, et al

   . Risk analysis of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: prospective 10-year cohort study. Stroke 2016;47:365–71 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010698 pmid:26742803

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Johnston SC,
   2. Dowd CF,
   3. Higashida RT, et al

   . Predictors of rehemorrhage after treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) study. Stroke 2008;39:120–25 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.495747 pmid:18048860

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Darsaut TE,
   2. Chapot R,
   3. Raymond J

   . Changing the rules of the game: the problem of surrogate angiographic outcomes in the evaluation of aneurysm treatments. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:2174–75 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6825 pmid:33033042

   FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. White PM,
   2. Lewis SC,
   3. Nahser H, et al

   . HELPS Trial Collaboration. HydroCoil Endovascular Aneurysm Occlusion and Packing Study (HELPS trial): procedural safety and operator-assessed efficacy results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:217–23 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0936 pmid:18184832

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Raymond J,
   2. Klink R,
   3. Chagnon M, et al

   . Hydrogel versus bare platinum coils in patients with large or recurrent aneurysms prone to recurrence after endovascular treatment: a randomized controlled trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:432–41 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5101

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Darsaut TE,
   2. Desal H,
   3. Cognard C, et al

   . Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM): an all-inclusive care trial for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. World Neurosurg 2020;141:e770–77 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.018 pmid:32526362

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Darsaut TE,
   2. Jack AS,
   3. Kerr RS, et al

   . International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial, ISAT, Part II: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013;14:156 doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-156 pmid:23714335

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Darsaut TE,
   2. Findlay JM,
   3. Magro E, et al

   . Surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a pragmatic randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017;88:663–68 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2016-315433 pmid:28634280

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Wallace RC,
   2. Karis JP,
   3. Partovi S, et al

   . Noninvasive imaging of treated cerebral aneurysms, Part II: CT angiographic follow-up of surgically clipped aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1207–12 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0664 pmid:17698518

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Wallace RC,
    2. Karis JP,
    3. Partovi S, et al

    . Noninvasive imaging of treated cerebral aneurysms, Part I: MR angiographic follow-up of coiled aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1001–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0662 pmid:17569946

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Ahmed SU,
    2. Mocco J,
    3. Zhang X, et al

    . MRA versus DSA for the follow-up imaging of intracranial aneurysms treated using endovascular techniques: a meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:1009–14 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014936 pmid:31048457

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Uricchio M,
    2. Gupta S,
    3. Jakowenko N, et al

    . Computed tomography angiography versus digital subtraction angiography for postclipping aneurysm obliteration detection. Stroke 2019;50:381–88 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023614 pmid:30661494

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Altman DG

    . Pragmatic trials can be designed as optimal medical care: principles and methods of care trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1150–56 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.010 pmid:25042688

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Cloft HJ,
    2. Kallmes DF

    . Scaling back on scales with a scale of scales. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:219–20 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2432 pmid:21183620

    FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Benomar A,
    2. Farzin B,
    3. Volders D, et al

    . Angiographic results of surgical or endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and inter-observer reliability study. Neuroradiology 2021 Feb 24. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s00234-021-02676-0 pmid:33625550

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Kottner J,
    2. Audige L,
    3. Brorson S, et al

    . Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:96–106 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002 pmid:21130355

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Cicchetti DV,
    2. Feinstein AR

    . High agreement but low kappa, II: resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:551–58 doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M pmid:2189948

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Feinstein AR,
    2. Cicchetti DV

    . High agreement but low kappa, I: the problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543–49 doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L pmid:2348207

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Donner A,
    2. Rotondi MA

    . Sample size requirements for interval estimation of the kappa statistic for interobserver agreement studies with a binary outcome and multiple raters. Int J Biostat 2010;6:Article 31 doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1275 pmid:21969984

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Fahed R,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Farzin B, et al

    . Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20:214 doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01095-8 pmid:32842953

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Roy D,
    2. Milot G,
    3. Raymond J

    . Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke 2001;32:1998–2004 doi:10.1161/hs0901.095600 pmid:11546888

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Harris PA,
    2. Taylor R,
    3. Minor BL, et al

    . REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208 doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 pmid:31078660

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Harris PA,
    2. Taylor R,
    3. Thielke R, et al

    . Research electronic data capture (REDCap: a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81 doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 pmid:18929686

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. McDonald JS,
    2. Carter RE,
    3. Layton KF, et al

    . Interobserver variability in retreatment decisions of recurrent and residual aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1035–39 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3326 pmid:23099500

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG

    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310 pmid:843571

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Jamali S,
    2. Fahed R,
    3. Gentric JC, et al

    . Inter- and intrarater agreement on the outcome of endovascular treatment of aneurysms using MRA. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:879–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4609 pmid:26659336

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Tollard E,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Bing F, et al

    . Outcomes of endovascular treatments of aneurysms: observer variability and implications for interpreting case series and planning randomized trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:626–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2848 pmid:22194386

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Kotowski M,
    2. Farzin B,
    3. Fahed R, et al

    . Residual cerebral aneurysms after microsurgical clipping: a new scale, an agreement study, and a systematic review of the literature. World Neurosurg 2019;121:e302–21 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.100 pmid:30261387

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. van Amerongen MJ,
    2. Boogaarts HD,
    3. de Vries J, et al

    . MRA versus DSA for follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1655–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3700 pmid:24008171

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Pradilla G,
    2. Wicks RT,
    3. Hadelsberg U, et al

    . Accuracy of computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms. World Neurosurg 2013;80:845–52 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.12.001 pmid:23220123

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Philipp LR,
    2. McCracken DJ,
    3. McCracken CE, et al

    . Comparison between CTA and digital subtraction angiography in the diagnosis of ruptured aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2017;80:769–77 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw113 pmid:28201559

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Wang X,
    2. Benson J,
    3. Jagadeesan B, et al

    . Giant cerebral aneurysms: comparing CTA, MRA, and digital subtraction angiography assessments. J Neuroimaging 2020;30:335–41 doi:10.1111/jon.12712 pmid:32324333

    CrossRefPubMed