ReviewNeuroradiology2025
Stent-Assisted Coil Embolization Versus Flow Diversion in Intracranial Vertebral Artery Dissecting Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of flow diversion versus stent-assisted coiling in posterior circulation aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Rapid development of a de novo vertebral artery dissecting aneurysm after contralateral vertebral artery occlusion: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Stent-Assisted Coiling vs. Flow Diversion in Unruptured Anterior Circulation Aneurysms: A Single-Center Cohort Study.Brain sciences · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntracranial vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms (IVADAs) represent a rare but challenging condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. In the therapeutic landscape, endovascular interventions such as Flow Diversion (FD) and Stent-Assisted Coiling (SAC) are widely used for the management of IVADAs. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with FD and SAC techniques in the endovascular management of IVADAs.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to December 2024. This meta-analysis included retrospective cohort studies comparing flow diverters versus stent-assisted coiling in patients with IVADAs. The primary outcomes included in-stent stenosis, complete occlusion rates, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. Statistical analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.4.0), with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I
resultsA total of seven non-randomized studies were included in the meta-analysis comprising 649 patients with IVADAs. Long-term complete occlusion rates were similar between FD and SAC (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.89-1.10; I
conclusionIn this meta-analysis, FD and SAC demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of IVADAs, with no significant differences in long-term complete occlusion, recurrence, retreatment, in-stent stenosis, or complication rates. In this context, FD is a promising technique to treat IVADAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40892269What 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.