Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Online first
    • Online first
  • Current issue
    • Current issue
  • Archive
    • Archive
  • Submit a paper
    • Online submission site
    • Instructions for authors
  • About the journal
    • About the journal
    • Editorial board
    • Instructions for authors
    • FAQs
    • Chinese Stroke Association
  • Help
    • Contact us
    • Feedback form
    • Reprints
    • Permissions
    • Advertising
  • BMJ Journals

User menu

  • Login

Search

  • Advanced search
  • BMJ Journals
  • Login
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Stroke and Vascular Neurology

Advanced Search

  • Online first
    • Online first
  • Current issue
    • Current issue
  • Archive
    • Archive
  • Submit a paper
    • Online submission site
    • Instructions for authors
  • About the journal
    • About the journal
    • Editorial board
    • Instructions for authors
    • FAQs
    • Chinese Stroke Association
  • Help
    • Contact us
    • Feedback form
    • Reprints
    • Permissions
    • Advertising
Open Access

Response to ‘comments on the article ‘sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections’’

Elke Schipani, Zafer Keser
DOI: 10.1136/svn-2025-004158 Published 26 March 2025
Elke Schipani
Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Elke Schipani
Zafer Keser
Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zafer Keser
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We value the interest in our work (Schipani et al)1 expressed by Zhang et al2 in their recent letter to the editor. We welcome the opportunity to respond and offer the following clarifications.

Traditionally, spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections (CeAD) have been classified separately. However, despite conflicting results from observational cohorts,3 there is currently no convincing evidence supporting significant differences in the underlying pathophysiology between the two types. Therefore, we believe this distinction to be arbitrary.

Regarding the recommendation from Zhang et al to stratify the analysis based on risk factors, we note that doing so would significantly reduce the sample size in each subgroup, which would, in turn, diminish the power of the analysis and the ability to detect meaningful differences. Moreover, such an approach falls outside the primary scope of our investigation, which focused on an exploration of sex differences in CeAD. Lastly, we acknowledge that the relatively small sample size in our study is a limitation, and we agree that our findings require validation with larger cohorts. We hope our work catalyses future studies that can build on these preliminary insights and provide more robust evidence.

We appreciate the thoughtful engagement of Zhang et al and look forward to ongoing discussions in this area of research.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The referenced study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board due to the retrospective cohort study nature of the study.

Footnotes

  • X @ElkeSchipani, @zaferkeserMD

  • Contributors All authors contributed equally to the work.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Schipani E,
    2. Griffin KJ,
    3. Oakley CI, et al
    . Sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2024.:svn-2024-003282. doi:10.1136/svn-2024-003282
  2. ↵
    1. Zhang X-M,
    2. Wang G
    . Comments on the article “Sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections”. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2025.:svn-2024-003904. doi:10.1136/svn-2024-003904
  3. ↵
    1. Xu D,
    2. Wu Y,
    3. Li J, et al
    . Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Imaging Features of Craniocervical Artery Dissection: Spontaneous CAD vs. Minor Traumatic CAD. Front Neurol 2022;13:836997. doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.836997
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 10 Issue 1 Table of Contents
Stroke and Vascular Neurology: 10 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Stroke and Vascular Neurology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response to ‘comments on the article ‘sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections’’
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Stroke and Vascular Neurology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Stroke and Vascular Neurology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Response to ‘comments on the article ‘sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections’’
Elke Schipani, Zafer Keser
Stroke and Vascular Neurology Mar 2025, svn-2025-004158; DOI: 10.1136/svn-2025-004158

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Cite This
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • Endnote
  • MLA
Loading
Response to ‘comments on the article ‘sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections’’
Elke Schipani, Zafer Keser
Stroke and Vascular Neurology Mar 2025, svn-2025-004158; DOI: 10.1136/svn-2025-004158
Download PDF

Share
Response to ‘comments on the article ‘sex differences in the epidemiology of spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissections’’
Elke Schipani, Zafer Keser
Stroke and Vascular Neurology Mar 2025, svn-2025-004158; DOI: 10.1136/svn-2025-004158
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Respond to this article
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Ethics statements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Mass effect, aneurysms and flow diverters: Is the pipeline embolization device the Lone Virtuoso? Commentary on ‘Pipeline embolization device for intracranial aneurysms presenting with mass effect: a large Chinese cohort’ by Zhao et al
  • Carotid plaque burden is associated with higher levels of total homocysteine
Show more Correspondence

Similar Articles

 
 

CONTENT

  • Latest content
  • Current issue
  • Archive
  • eLetters
  • Sign up for email alerts
  • RSS

JOURNAL

  • About the journal
  • Editorial board
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Chinese Stroke Association

AUTHORS

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a paper
  • Track your article
  • Open Access at BMJ

HELP

  • Contact us
  • Reprints
  • Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback form

© 2025 Chinese Stroke Association