ArticleWorld journal of radiology2024
Traditional craniotomy versus current minimally invasive surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: A propensity-matched analysis.
Article in World journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Comparison of Neurofactor Changes and Prognosis in Elderly Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Treated with Endoscopic versus Conventional Craniotomy Surgery.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) and craniotomy (CI) are the current treatments for spontaneous supratentorial cerebral haemorrhage (SSTICH).
aimTo compare the efficacy and safety of MIS and CI for the treatment of SSTICH.
methodsClinical and imaging data of 557 consecutive patients with SSTICH who underwent MIS or CI between January 2017 and December 2022 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two subgroups: The MIS group and CI group. Propensity score matching was performed to minimise case selection bias. The primary outcome was a dichotomous prognostic (favourable or unfavourable) outcome based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months; an mRS score of 0-2 was considered favourable.
resultsIn both conventional statistical and binary logistic regression analyses, the MIS group had a better outcome. The outcome of propensity score matching was unexpected (odds ratio: 0.582; 95%CI: 0.281-1.204;
conclusionDeciding between MIS and CI should be made based on the individual patient, considering the hematoma size, degree of midline shift, cerebral swelling, and preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale score.
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.