SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022
Efficacy of pipeline embolization device vs. traditional coils in embolization of intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pipeline Embolization device for the treatment of unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Conventional endovascular treatment and flow diverter for unruptured small- and medium-sized paraophthalmic segment aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- De novo aneurysm formation after flow diverter stent placement.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In recent years, the Pipeline embolization device (PED) has been widely used in the embolization of intracranial aneurysms, but there are some inconsistent findings on whether its efficacy and safety are superior to those of traditional coils embolization (coils alone, stent-assisted coils and balloon-assisted coils). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PED in intracranial aneurysm embolization by comparing with traditional coils. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control studies and cohort studies) comparing the efficacy of PED with traditional coils in intracranial aneurysm embolization published before April 1, 2022. The endpoints observed in this meta-analysis were procedure-related intracranial hemorrhage, procedure-related intracranial ischemia, other procedure-related complications (e.g., aneurysm rupture, neurological impairment, etc.), retreatment rate, complete occlusion (100%) of the aneurysm at the last follow-up, and favorable functional outcome (MRS ≤ 2). Results: A total of 10 studies with a total of 1,400 patients (PED group: 576 and Traditional coils: 824) were included in this meta-analysis. A comprehensive analysis of the included literature showed that the PED group had a higher rate of complete aneurysm occlusion [OR = 2.62, 95% Cl (1.94, 3.55), Conclusion: PED had higher rates of complete aneurysm occlusion and lower rates of aneurysm retreatment compared with traditional coils, but traditional coils was superior to the PED group in terms of procedure-related intracranial hemorrhage complication and other procedure-related complications (aneurysm rupture, neurological impairment), and favorable functional outcome (mRS ≤ 2). This result still needs to be further confirmed by additional large-sample, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022325673.
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.