ArticleBMJ open2019
Comparison of surgical strategies in patients with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage: a protocol for a network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH) is a severe stroke subtype. The effective therapies for patients with sICH are still unclear, and the role of surgical treatment in sICH management is still controversial. Although some large trials did not show that surgery could benefit patients with sICH, some other studies suggested that some specific surgical strategies can have potential benefits to these patients. For a better understanding of the surgical treatment in patients with sICH, it is necessary to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare the effects of medical treatment and different surgical methods comprehensively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Related studies until August 2018 will be searched in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and Wanfang. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised prospective studies comparing at least two different interventions in patients with sICH will be included. Quality assessment will be conducted using Cochrane Collaboration's tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale based on their study designs. The primary outcome will be functional outcome and the secondary outcome will be mortality. Pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted using STATA V.14 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). Mean ranks and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to evaluate every intervention. Statistical inconsistency assessment, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not necessary because this study will be based on publications. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112239.
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.