ReviewWorld neurosurgery: X2024
Stent-assistant versus non-stent-assistant coiling for ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Review in World neurosurgery: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of clipping in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a post hoc analysis of the Earlydrain trial.Neurosurgical review · 2024Trial
- Flow Diverter Stents for Recurrent Intracranial Aneurysms after Stent-Assisted Coil Embolization: Safety, Efficacy, and Technical Considerations-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2026Review
- Combined microcatheter and guidewire technique in endovascular coiling of a wide-neck anterior communicating artery aneurysm: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Single Neuroform Atlas stent: a reliable approach for treating complex wide-neck bifurcated aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several different endovascular and non-invasive treatment methods are suggested for the various types of intracranial aneurysms including simple, balloon-assisted, and stent-assisted coiling (SAC). Previous studies investigated the safety and efficacy of SAC versus non-stent-assisted coiling (non-SAC) but the results were controversial. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of SAC with non-SAC technique in stratifying by the ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched in April 2022 for studies investigated the efficacy and safety of SAC versus non-SAC. Results: Overall, 26 studies entered into our qualitative and quantitative synthesis. We found that there was overall lower recurrence rate in SAC versus non-SAC significant (RR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.33, 0.53). Furthermore, the comparisons were significant in unruptured (RR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.40, 0.86), ruptured (RR: 0.29, 95%CI), and combination aneurysms (RR: 0.42, 95%CI: 0.30, 0.54). Also, we found higher risk of intraprocedural rupture for SAC versus non-SAC in unruptured aneurysms (RR: 1.40, 95%CI: 1.31, 1.50). Investigating hemorrhagic events risk showed that there was significant difference in ruptured (RR: 1.73, 95%CI: 1.12, 2.34) and combination aneurysms (RR: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37, 0.82). There was no significant difference in immediate occlusion rate, complete occlusion, and risk of ischemic events in our analysis. Conclusion: Overall, our findings demonstrated that SAC may have higher efficacy in term of recurrence rate, but also may have a higher risk of complications in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. As there are several factors affecting the outcomes and safety of these interventions, further RCTs controlled for multiple factors are required better guide the neurointerventionists choose the best strategy.
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.