ArticleNeuroradiology2025
A propensity score matching analysis of the efficacy and safety of middle meningeal artery embolization versus burr hole drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematomas.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) and burr hole drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH).
methodsPatients diagnosed with CSDH who underwent MMAE or surgical treatment were retrospectively recruited to this single-center study. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of MMAE and burr hole drainage. Efficacy outcomes included hematoma clearance, cure, recurrence, and re-intervention rates within a 90-day postoperative follow-up period. Safety outcomes included the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0-2 at the 90-day postoperative follow-up, procedure-related complications during hospitalization, and hospital stay length.
resultsAmong the 183 CSDH patients, 34.4% (63 patients) received MMAE and 65.6% (120 patients) underwent burr hole drainage surgery. The MMAE group showed a higher hematoma clearance rate (90.62±8.98% vs. 81.12±18.62%, P=0.005), higher cure rate (63.4% vs. 41.5%, P=0.047), and lower recurrence rate (2.4% vs. 14.6%, P=0.048) after PSM compared to the burr hole group. The re-intervention rates in the MMAE and burr hole groups showed no significant differences (2.4% vs. 7.3%, P=0.305). Safety outcomes favored the MMAE group, with a lower 90-day mRS score (0.34±0.53 vs. 0.73±0.55, P=0.02) and shorter hospital stay (6.41±2.53 days vs. 9.29±3.71 days, P<0.001). Surgery-related adverse events occurred in 4.9% of the MMAE group and 9.7% of the burr hole group patients (P=0.392).
conclusionsMMAE was a safe and efficacious alternative procedure for CSDH treatment that showed a reduced recurrence rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40938371What 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.