Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38833192›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024

Efficacy and safety of neuroendoscopy surgery versus craniotomy for supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Gabriel de Almeida Monteiro, Gabriel Marinheiro, Antonio Mutarelli, Beatriz Araújo, Joaquim Francisco Cavalcante-Neto, Sávio Batista, Paulo Roberto Lacerda Leal, Gerardo Cristino-Filho, Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo, João Paulo Mota Telles

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Gabriel de Almeida MonteiroDepartment of Neurosurgery, Federal University of Ceará, Av. Cmte. Maurocélio Rocha Pontes, 100 - Jocely Dantas de Andrade Torres, Sobral - CE, Sobral, 62042-250, Brazil. gabrielmont00@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2319-9238
Gabriel MarinheiroSchool of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará, Sobral, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8040-6515
Antonio MutarelliSchool of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5595-9433
Beatriz AraújoDepartment of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, São Bernado do Campo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1392-2544
Joaquim Francisco Cavalcante-NetoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Federal University of Ceará, Av. Cmte. Maurocélio Rocha Pontes, 100 - Jocely Dantas de Andrade Torres, Sobral - CE, Sobral, 62042-250, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6495-5875
Sávio BatistaFaculty of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6861-0505
Paulo Roberto Lacerda LealDepartment of Neurosurgery, Federal University of Ceará, Av. Cmte. Maurocélio Rocha Pontes, 100 - Jocely Dantas de Andrade Torres, Sobral - CE, Sobral, 62042-250, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2489-3777
Gerardo Cristino-FilhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Federal University of Ceará, Av. Cmte. Maurocélio Rocha Pontes, 100 - Jocely Dantas de Andrade Torres, Sobral - CE, Sobral, 62042-250, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-5276
Eberval Gadelha FigueiredoDivision of Neurosurgery, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9094-6622
João Paulo Mota TellesDepartment of Neurology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9322-0405

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroendoscopy (NE) surgery emerged as a promising technique for the treatment of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). A previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzed the efficacy and safety of NE compared to craniotomy, but NE did not present a significant improvement in functional outcomes. However, a new study provided an opportunity to update the current knowledge. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs reporting NE evacuation of spontaneous supratentorial ICH compared to craniotomy. The efficacy outcomes of interest were favorable functional outcome, functional disability, hematoma evacuation rate, and residual hematoma volume. The safety outcomes of interest were rebleeding, infection, and mortality. Seven RCTs were included containing 879 patients. The NE approach presented a significantly higher rate of favorable functional outcome compared with craniotomy (RR: 1.42; 95% CI 1.17, 1.73; p < 0.001). The evacuation rate was higher in patients who underwent the NE approach (MD: -8.36; 95% CI -12.66, -4.07; p < 0.001). NE did not show a benefit in improving the mortality rate (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.54, 1.22; p = 0.32). NE was associated with more favorable functional outcomes and lower rates of functional disabilities compared to craniotomy. Also, NE was superior regarding evacuation rate, while presenting a reduction in residual hematoma volume. NE might be associated with lower infection rates. Mortality was not improved by NE surgery. Larger, higher-quality randomized studies are needed to adequately evaluate the efficacy and safety of NE compared to craniotomy.

Indexed as

Cerebral HemorrhageCraniotomyNeuroendoscopyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansTreatment OutcomeCraniotomyIntracerebral hemorrhageMeta-analysisNeuroendoscopySupratentorial hemorrhage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.