ReviewThe journal of headache and pain2025
Beyond the "string of beads": case-based exploration of diagnostic pitfalls and solutions in reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome.
Review in The journal of headache and pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome-related headache and delayed cerebral infarction: a mini review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is challenging due to its varied clinical manifestations and imaging findings. While it typically presents with a sudden, severe thunderclap headache and multifocal constriction of the cerebral arteries, the wide spectrum of radiological presentations may complicate the diagnosis. MAIN BODY: This review presents a series of cases that show both typical and atypical presentations of RCVS. Typical cases show the characteristic "string of beads" pattern on angiography, which usually resolves within 3-6 months. However, diagnostic challenges arise when angiography appears normal in the early stages or when imaging artifacts obscure the findings. In addition, the variability in vasoconstriction patterns and the need for a differential diagnosis further complicate the accurate identification. These cases highlight the importance of considering RCVS in patients with recurrent thunderclap headaches, even when the initial imaging is inconclusive. Recognizing these challenges and the variability in presentation, along with the use of high-resolution vessel wall MRI and blood-brain barrier imaging, can improve diagnostic accuracy and improve patient outcomes.
conclusionThe diagnosis of RCVS requires careful integration of clinical evaluation and advanced imaging techniques, with particular attention to radiological findings that can guide accurate diagnosis and management. Despite challenges, such as normal early stage angiography and imaging variability, maintaining a high suspicion of RCVS is essential, especially in patients with recurrent thunderclap headaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.