SynthesisNeuroradiology2025
Meta-analysis of four phase III, Multicenter, randomized trials assessing the efficacy and safety of middle meningeal artery embolization for subdural hematoma.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 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.
- Middle meningeal artery embolization in chronic subdural hematoma: a paradigm shift?European radiology · 2026Review
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
objectiveThere is currently no clear consensus on the use of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) for the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma. This study aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of the MMAE for chronic subdural hematoma.
methodsWe performed a pooled analysis of four recently conducted phase III multicenter randomized controlled trials (EMBOLISE, EMPROTECT, MAGIC-MT, and STEM), encompassing a total of 1,774 patients with subacute or chronic subdural hematoma. MMAE was compared with conventional treatment in terms of treatment failure (primary efficacy outcomes) and serious adverse events (primary safety outcomes). Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of surgical combination status, haematoma type, embolic material used, and follow-up duration.
resultsCompared with the control, MMAE was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure (risk ratio [RR] = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.74, P < 0.001) in chronic subdural hematoma patients, without increasing the incidence of serious adverse events (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.16, P = 0.45). The benefits were consistent across most subgroups, although they were attenuated in high-risk patients treated with particulate agents. The secondary outcomes, including changes in hematoma volume and thickness, midline shift, and mortality, were not significantly different.
conclusionMMAE was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure in chronic subdural hematoma patients. Our findings cautiously support its potential role in clinical management. However, further research remains necessary to optimize embolization strategies and refine patient selection criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41065869What 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.