SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Setting benchmark for ischemic stroke treated endovascularly: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparative study was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of endovascular procedures for treating cerebral aneurysms with the aim of establishing standardized outcome metrics. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on randomized controlled trials extracted from the MEDLINE, OVID, and Cochrane databases through May 2024. Out of the initial 1637 articles, 20 studies were selected based on stringent inclusion criteria (1.2%). Four key outcomes were evaluated: major recurrence (characterized by a Raymond-Roy scale ≥ 2b [RR]), retreatment rate, mortality rate, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS). In addition, the results were categorized and analyzed according to various endovascular techniques in a subgroup analysis. The I^2 values were high with a ranged between 86.93% and 98.54%. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 18 months. Significant recurrence was observed in 32.6% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.5 to 46.6), with retreatment necessary in 13.5% (95% CI, 8.6 to 18.3). An mRS score of ≤ 2 was achieved in 88.2% (95%CI 84.1 to 92.4)of cases, while the mortality rate was 2.6% (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.6). FD and intra-saccular devices exhibited notably higher RR ≥ 2b. The coil trials demonstrated significantly higher retreatment rates than the clipping trials. The Flow-diverter group showed a higher proportion of mRS scores ≤ 2. Studies focusing solely on urgent patients have shown considerably lower RR ≥ 2b rates. These established reference standards act as benchmarks for evaluating novel endovascular procedures, enabling a more systematic assessment of their effectiveness and safety profile. This approach improves the caliber of the evidence, supports clinical judgment, and promotes innovation in treatment technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40346346What 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.