SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Does duration of nimodipine therapy impact outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: 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. 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.
- Comment on shortened treatment with nimodipine in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.Brain & spine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a neurosurgical emergency with high morbidity and mortality risks. Vasospasm, a severe subacute complication, may be mitigated by nimodipine, a calcium channel blocker. The optimal duration of nimodipine therapy remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate the optimal duration of nimodipine therapy in relation to overall morbidity in aSAH patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (1/1975-9/2024). Included studies reported nimodipine protocols and standardized outcomes. Data extracted included demographics, nimodipine dosing, duration, and outcomes. The primary outcome was overall morbidity, assessed via extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (eGOS), Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), or modified Rankin Scale (mRS). The secondary outcome was neuroimaging-validated delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) incidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Fourteen studies (19 cohorts) included 759 standard-of-care (SOC, 21-day nimodipine) and 781 dose duration reduction (DDR, < 21 days) patients. SOC had a pooled favorable outcome proportion of 0.52 [95% CI: 0.34-0.70], versus 0.74 [95% CI: 0.64-0.83] for DDR (p = 0.03). Subgroup analyses showed significant differences by outcome scale (p < 0.01) and administration route (p = 0.01), with oral DDR linked to better outcomes (p = 0.02). Heterogeneity was significant (I
Indexed as
Identifiers
40579560What 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.