ISAT: end of the debate on coiling versus clipping?

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.

1. Recurrence of endovascularly and microsurgically treated intracranial aneurysms-review of the putative role of aneurysm wall biology.Neurosurgical review · 2019
   Review
2. Intracranial post-embolization residual or recurrent aneurysms: Current management using surgical clipping.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2016
   Review
3. Controversies in epidemiology of intracranial aneurysms and SAH.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2016
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  ISAT: end of the debate on coiling versus clipping? - Authors' reply.2015
• Comment on
  The durability of endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: 18 year follow-up of the UK cohort of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT).2015

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as