SynthesisBMC neurology2025
Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic surgery versus small bone window craniotomy for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of neuro-endoscopy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Neuroendoscopic hematoma evacuation vs. craniotomy in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: a retrospective comparative study on surgical efficiency and long-term functional outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic surgery (ES) and small bone window craniotomy (SBWC) are commonly used methods for hematoma removal in cases of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, their long-term efficacy and safety remain uncertain.
methodsA systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 30, 2024. The primary outcomes assessed were the 6-month favorable functional outcome rate and the hematoma evacuation rate. Following the meta-analysis, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to validate the findings.
resultsSix randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. ES demonstrated a higher 6-month favorable functional outcome rate compared to SBWC (56.8% vs. 48.0%, relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.38, I
conclusionsThe meta-analysis and TSA indicate that ES offers better long-term efficacy, shorter operation times, less blood loss, and a lower rate of pneumonia compared to SBWC. Therefore, prioritizing ES over SBWC for treating ICH appears to be a reasonable approach.
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.