You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter to the editor
PHASES and the natural history of unruptured aneurysms: science or pseudoscience?
  1. G J E Rinkel1,
  2. A Algra1,2,
  3. J P Greving2,
  4. M D I Vergouwen1,
  5. N Etminan3
  1. 1Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  2. 2Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr G J E Rinkel, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, GA Utrecht 3508, The Netherlands; G.J.E.Rinkel{at}umcutrecht.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012436

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Dr Darsaut et al1 for their attention paid to the PHASES score and for sharing their thinking in an opinion paper 2 years after the publication of our article.2 The authors discuss whether or not prediction modeling based on data from previous observational studies is science. Their final conclusion is that the only valid way to decide whether or not unruptured aneurysms should be treated is to compare outcomes in patients eligible for both options (ie, aneurysm occlusion …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles