Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37542351›Full record

ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2023

Pipeline versus Tubridge in the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms.

Hengwei Jin, Jian Lv, Xiangyu Meng, Xinke Liu, Hongwei He, Youxiang Li

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hengwei JinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital and Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4Th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Jian LvDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital and Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4Th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Xiangyu MengNeurosurgery Department, The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Donggang Road 89, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
Xinke LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital and Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4Th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Hongwei He *Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital and Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4Th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China. hehongwei0123@163.com.
Youxiang Li *Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital and Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4Th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China. drliyouxiang@163.com.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Institute of Neurosurgery · CNHebei Medical University · CN

Funding

Beijing Gold-Bridge Project ZZ21060National Natural Science Foundation of China 82171289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the safety and efficacy of pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge flow diverter (TFD) for unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms.

methodsPosterior aneurysm patients treated with PED or TFD between January, 2019, and December, 2021, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' demographics, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, complications, and follow-up information were collected. The procedural-related complications and angiographic and clinical outcome were compared.

resultsA total of 107 patients were involved; PED was applied for 55 patients and TFD for 52 patients. A total of 9 (8.4%) procedural-related complications occurred, including 4 (7.3%) in PED group and 5 (9.6%) in TFD group. During a mean of 10.3-month angiographic follow-up for 81 patients, complete occlusion was achieved in 35 (85.4%) patients in PED group and 30 (75.0%) in TFD group. The occlusion rate of PED group is slightly higher than that of TFD group. A mean of 25.0-month clinical follow-up for 107 patients showed that favorable clinical outcome was achieved in 53 (96.4%) patients in PED group and 50 (96.2%) patients in TFD group, respectively. No statistical difference was found in terms of procedural-related complications (p = 0.737), occlusion rate (p = 0.241), and favorable clinical outcome (0.954) between groups.

conclusionsThe current study found no difference in complication, occlusion, and clinical outcome between PED and TFD for unruptured PCAs.

Indexed as

Pipeline embolization devicePosterior circulation aneurysmTubridge flow diverter

Identifiers

PMID37542351
PMCPMC10401889
OpenAlexW4385580890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.