ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Tubridge flow diverter alone vs. Tubridge flow diverter and coils for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: A propensity score matching analysis.
Article 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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of flow diversion for blood blister aneurysms: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Outcome of Pipeline Embolization Device with and without Coils to Treat Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Pipeline embolization device versus Tubridge embolization device in unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a multicenter, propensity score matched study.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2024Article
- Preliminary experience of Tubridge Plus flow diverter in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The study was designed to assess the clinical performance of a tubridge flow diverter (TFD) in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms and to compare the efficacy and safety between intracranial aneurysms treated with TFD alone and TFD combined with coiling. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients treated with the TFD alone or TFD combined with coiling between June 2018 to November 2022 were included. The patient demographics, the characteristics of the aneurysm, and the treatment outcomes between the two groups were compared. Propensity score matching was performed to match the variables with a significant difference between groups. Results: In the current study, data from 93 consecutive patients including 104 aneurysms treated with TFD were analyzed. In total, 43 patients with 49 aneurysms were treated with TFD alone, and 50 patients with 55 aneurysms were treated with TFD combined with coiling. Aneurysms in the TFD combined with the coiling group were larger (12.9 ± 8.6 vs. 8.7 ± 8.8 mm, Conclusion: TFD combined with coiling can be a safe and effective alternative option for the treatment of complex aneurysms. Given the potential risks of these therapeutic modalities, thus very careful consideration is required on an individual patient basis.
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.