ArticleBrain & spine2024
Comparison of long-term clinical outcome after endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment of ruptured intracranial anterior circulation aneurysms: A single-centre experience.
Article in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serum peroxiredoxin 2 emerges as a predictive biomarker of poor neurological outcome and delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a prospective cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Complex Anatomy, Advanced Techniques: Microsurgical Clipping of a Ruptured Hypophyseal Artery Aneurysm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Temporal Trends in Serum Homer1 Levels and Their Prognostic Implications in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Prospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Longitudinal change and prognostic significance of serum PINK1 levels, and mediation role of delayed cerebral ischemia in human aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: an observational analytical study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In patients with anterior circulation aneurysmal Subarachnoid Haemorrhage (aSAH), endovascular coiling is currently practiced more frequently than neurosurgical clipping. However, despite multiple previous studies, it is still uncertain whether coiling is favourable in terms of long-term clinical outcome. Research question: What is the effect of clipping versus coiling on long-term functional outcome of patients with an aSAH? Material and methods: All anterior circulation aSAH patients (2012-2015) treated with clipping or coiling in two hospitals in the Netherlands were studied up to five years after treatment. Functional outcome, survival, retreatment- and complication rate were measured. Survival analysis was performed in both groups. A multivariable regression model with covariate adjustment was performed to investigate the likelihood of unfavourable outcome (modified Rankin Scale >2). Results: Out of 204 patients, 75 patients were clipped (37%) and 129 received coiling (63%). Coiling had a higher retreatment rate compared to clipping (7.8% vs. 0.0%). Unfavourable outcome at six, 12, 24 and 60 months after treatment was higher for patients after clipping compared to coiling, but was not significant after correcting for clinical severity as represented by the WFNS grade. In 60 months, no difference in survival was found between clipping and coiling. Discussion and conclusion: No differences between clipping and coiling in survival and long-term functional outcome have been found in this study. More research with prospective design and large cohorts is needed to identify possible differences between the two treatments.
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.