Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16235314›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.

I van der Schaaf, A Algra, M Wermer, A Molyneux, M Clarke, J van Gijn, G Rinkel

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 277 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Update on subarachnoid haemorrhage.Journal of neurology · 2008
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using flow-diverting silk stents (BALT): a single centre experience.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2011
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

I van der SchaafUniversity Hospital Utrecht, Department of Neurology, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, Netherlands 3508 GA. g.j.e.rinkel@neuro.azu.nl
A Algra
M Wermer
A Molyneux
M Clarke
J van Gijn
G Rinkel
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLHeidelberg University · DENational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who have had an aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) are at very high risk of rebleeding if the aneurysm is not treated. The standard treatment for several decades has been surgical clipping of the neck of the aneurysm. In recent years, an alternative, the introduction of detachable coils to occlude the aneurysm, has become more common.

objectivesTo compare the effects of endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched in February 2005). In addition we searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), and contacted trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials in which endovascular coiling of aneurysms was compared with neurosurgical clipping in patients with SAH who have proven aneurysm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Trialists were contacted to obtain missing information. MAIN

resultsWe identified three randomised trials: two published and one unpublished. The trials included a total of 2272 patients (range per trial: 20 to 2143 patients). Most of the patients were in good clinical condition and had an aneurysm on the anterior circulation. After one year of follow up, the relative risk (RR) of poor outcome for coiling versus clipping was 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.88). The absolute risk reduction was 7% (95% CI 4% to 11%). In the worst-case scenario analysis for poor outcome overall, the relative risk for coiling versus clipping was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 6% (95% CI 2% to 10%). For patients with anterior circulation aneurysm the relative risk of poor outcome was 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.90) and the absolute risk decrease was 7% (95% CI 3% to 10%). For those with a posterior circulation aneurysm the relative risk was 0.41 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.92) and the absolute decrease in risk 27% (95% CI 6% to 48%). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe evidence comes mainly from one large trial. For patients in good clinical condition with ruptured aneurysms of either the anterior or posterior circulation we have firm evidence that, if the aneurysm is considered suitable for both surgical clipping and endovascular treatment, coiling is associated with a better outcome.

Indexed as

StentsAneurysm, RupturedEmbolization, TherapeuticHumansIntracranial AneurysmNeurosurgical ProceduresRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceSubarachnoid Hemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID16235314
OpenAlexW2166426244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.