SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Comparative efficacy and safety of therapeutic strategies for mirror aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 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.
- Headache and Intracranial Aneurysm: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Study.Current neurovascular research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mirror aneurysms are rare and pose therapeutic challenges, with both endovascular and microsurgical options available. Single-stage and two-stage procedures are employed, but the optimal strategy remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy and safety of different therapeutic strategies for managing mirror aneurysms. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines and comprehensively analyzed data from multiple databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, up to 30th September 2024. Statistical analysis utilized the Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) software version 3.0. This systematic review encompasses 42 studies, with 11 studies undergoing meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 629 participants. Both microsurgical clipping and endovascular interventions achieved high rates of complete occlusion (RROC 1) (ES = 0.896; 95% CI: 0.840 to 0.931; P < 0.001) with low to moderate heterogeneity (I
Indexed as
Identifiers
39666217What 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.