ArticleJournal of central nervous system disease2024
Decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for acute subdural hematoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis with an adjusted subgroup analysis.
Article in Journal of central nervous system disease, 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.
- Beyond the bone flap: integrating biomarkers, imaging, and emerging technologies in the surgical continuum of acute subdural hematoma (ASDH).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Acute subdural hematomas are major causes of morbidity which warrant immediate treatment. If surgical intervention is warranted, craniotomy (CO) and decompressive craniectomy (DC) are employed, largely based on a loosely defined criteria and the neurosurgeon's best judgment. The primacy of one approach over another is a matter of dispute. Objective: We attempt to further clarify any advantages in the two techniques, and include a propensity score matched (PSM) subgroup analysis to eliminate bias. Design: This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Data Sources and Methods: A literature review was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar from inception to September 2023. 15 studies were extracted, and three outcomes were meta-analyzed: Mortality, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores and patients undergoing re-operations/revisions. Odds Ratios (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) were used in dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. PSM data was used wherever possible. A subgroup analysis was conducted with 5 PSM studies and a trial. Heterogeneity was addressed if above 40% and the Results: A total of 15 studies were meta-analyzed with a total of 2327 and 2171 patients undergoing CO and DC respectively. Patients undergoing DC had a significantly worse GOS 5 outcome (OR: .63 [95% CI: .45-.87]; Conclusions: This meta-analysis determines that CO is more viable than DC as a surgical option due to its less invasive nature. DC can be employed, albeit under strict preprocedural patient selection and for highly specific indications.
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.