ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Treatment of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms: Systematic review in an attempt to perform a network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Microsurgical Clipping for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Narrative Review of Intraoperative Technologies and Clinical Outcomes.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of endovascular coil embolization for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms: middle-term clinical and imaging outcomes with 3 years mean follow-up periods, a 16-year experience.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Open surgical clipping has been generally considered the best treatment option for unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms (uMCAAs). However, this type of aneurysm is being treated endovascularly with the appearance of new devices. We have carried out a systematic review of randomized and quasi-experimental studies to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the safety and efficacy of the different treatment methods currently used in uMCAAs. Methods: The literature was searched by using PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Eligibility criteria were randomized or quasi-experimental studies including at least five cases per arm and reporting duration of follow-up and number of lost cases. The end points were: angiographic success, final neurological outcome, and the need for retreatments. Results: We could only analyze four quasi-experimental studies with 398 uMCAAs. All of them compared clipping vs. coiling. Clipping showed better results than coiling in all analyzed end points. We could not conduct the proposed NMA because of the absence of randomized or quasi-experimental studies. Instead, a systematic review is further discussed. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for comparative studies on the treatment of uMCAAs.
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.