ReviewInterventional neurology2013
Early endovascular treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Review in Interventional neurology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment during cerebral vasospasm phase-complication association and outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.Journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Incidence and mortality rates of strokes in Kazakhstan in 2014-2019.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Outcomes following acute poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid bleed - Is early definitive treatment better than delayed management?Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subarachnoid hemorrhage is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Rebleeding is one of its major complications, which occurs mainly within the first 24 h and worsens the clinical outcome in a very dramatic way. It may be prevented by aneurysm treatment: surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We review the evidence of and recent advances in endovascular treatment and timing of the intervention. Data supporting the benefit of early (<72 h) and ultra-early (<24 h) treatment is based on observational studies. An earlier approach may be relevant for the prevention of rebleeding and improvement of clinical outcome, but several disadvantages should be considered, such as an increased rate of periprocedural complications. Hence, a well-designed randomized controlled trial deems necessary to be able to define the optimal time of treatment. The possibility of treatment concomitant with the initial angiography should also be taken into account in this trial. This fact might represent a benefit favoring coiling over clipping in the prevention of rebleeding, and thus avoiding the inevitable delay necessary for the preparation for surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.