ReviewNeurosurgical review2024
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the cerebrovascular space: essential domains for readers.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does duration of nimodipine therapy impact outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
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
introductionSystematic Review and Meta-Analysis (SRMAs) in neurosurgery have significantly increased. With approximately 1 million patients affected by cerebrovascular disease annually, interpreting SRMAs necessitates a systematic approach. The objective of this review is to identify and describe four essential domains for SRMA interpretation.
methodsThis review outlines the necessities of reviewing existing literature and methodological frameworks essential for interpreting cerebrovascular neurosurgery SRMAs. Each domain is to accurately assess study design variations, heterogeneity assessment methods, outcome comparability strategies, and the impact of technological advancements and time bias on study outcomes.
resultsStudy design evaluation distinguishes between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies. RCTs provide high internal validity, but as seen in the ARUBA trial, can contain internal flaws that necessitate a deeper understanding before application to clinical practices. Non-randomized studies offer valuable real-world insights. A heterogeneity assessment involves readers and writers accurately using forest plots, Cochrane's Q test, Higgins I² statistics, subgroup analysis, and meta-regressions to understand a study's clinical findings. The expertise thresholds, as in the NASCET trial, significantly impact a study's external validity. Strategies such as the GRADE approach can assist in managing diverse outcome measures. Technological advancements, particularly in endovascular procedures and SRS, influence the accuracy of comparing studies across periods, and thus swiftly outdate older studies, lowering the applicability of SRMAs.
conclusionEffective interpretation of cerebrovascular neurosurgery SRMAs requires attention to study design, heterogeneity, outcome comparability, and technological advancements. These domains collectively enable evidence-based clinical decision-making and optimized patient care in a dynamic field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39168862What 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.