ReviewCureus2025
Minimally Invasive Decompression for Chiari I Malformation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chiari I malformation (CIM) is a structural defect in the cerebellum, which is characterized by herniation of the cerebellar tonsils into the foramen magnum. While open foramen magnum decompression is traditional, some surgeons practice a minimally invasive technique. Our paper intends to further elucidate the differences in outcomes between the traditional and minimally invasive foramen magnum decompression (MID). Article selection was from PubMed. Included studies had symptomatic patient populations requiring surgical intervention via MID, and whose complications were explicitly reported and described. A total of 200 patients were reported by 10 studies. Surgical incision area ranged from 2.5 cm² to 12 cm². Meta-analysis revealed that operative time was highly heterogeneous (I² = 99%). Neurological testing included visual analogue scale (VAS), Karnofsky performance scale (KPS), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (mJOA), and Chicago Chiari outcome scale (CCOS). The average rate of patient syringomyelia improvement was 84%. Meta-analysis of complication rates showed a moderate heterogeneity (I² = 61%), with common and random effect models yielding proportions of 0.16 and 0.12, respectively. The most and least common complications were dural tear (eight occurrences) and superficial wound infection (one occurrence). Averages of neurological testing scales confirmed improvement in function. Syringomyelia improvement rates demonstrated that MID is effective. Complication rates were found to be favorable and superior to those of open surgery. These results demonstrate that this technique is effective for the treatment of symptomatic CIM and that MID is at least as efficacious as open surgery.
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.