SynthesisTranslational stroke research2025
Flow-Diverting Devices in the Treatment of Vertebral Artery Aneurysms: Insights into Efficacy and Safety from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Translational stroke research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- De novo contralateral vertebral artery dissection after treatment: incidence and clinical characteristics.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic Features of Offending Vessels in Primary Hemifacial Spasm: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Study.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Innovations in intracranial aneurysm treatment: a pilot study on the Choydar flow diverter.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of flow-diverting devices (FDs) treatment for intracranial vertebral artery (VA) aneurysms. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, and Embase for English-language studies up to February 2024 and included clinical studies on FD treatment of intracranial VA aneurysms. Sensitivity analysis evaluated outcome stability. Of 2273 articles, 29 studies involving 541 aneurysms treated with FDs were included. Based on the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), six were high-quality and 23 moderate quality. FD treatment showed a 95% rate of favorable clinical outcomes (95% CI, 89-99%), 81% (95% CI, 74-88%) complete aneurysmal occlusion, 4% (95% CI, 2-7%) ischemic complication incidence, 1% (95% CI, 0-3%) hemorrhagic complication incidence, 95% (95% CI, 87-100%) posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) preservation, and 6% (95% CI, 3-10%) in-stent stenosis or occlusion across clinical and angiographic follow-up periods of 13.62 months (95% CI, 10.72-16.52) and 11.85 months (95% CI, 9.36-14.33), respectively. Subgroup analyses, based on a 12-month angiographic follow-up threshold, indicated no statistically significant differences in rates of complete aneurysm occlusion, PICA preservation, or in-stent stenosis or occlusion incidence (p > 0.05) between subgroups. Moreover, significant differences were observed in clinical and angiographic outcomes between ruptured and unruptured aneurysms, particularly in hemorrhagic complications (p < 0.05), without significant disparity in ischemic complications (p > 0.05). The results' stability was confirmed via sensitivity analysis. FDs treatment for VA aneurysms is efficacious and safe, offering high rates of positive clinical and angiographic outcomes with minimal complications, underscoring FDs' viability as a treatment option for VA aneurysms. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024499894).
Indexed as
Identifiers
38602659What 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.