ReviewCureus2025
Role of Intracranial Aneurysm Location in Determining Optimal Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the influence of aneurysm location on optimal management strategies, specifically comparing clipping and coiling. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to December 2024. The mixed-effects model reported a dichotomous outcome using the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis was performed, and statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics. Bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. The primary outcome included the mortality rate among clipping and coiling treatments, and the secondary endpoint was a favorable functional outcome at 1-5 years of follow-up. We included eight RCTs, totaling 8199 patients, and the qualitative systematic review analysis showed that most aneurysms are located in the anterior circulation, with a predominantly female distribution. Clipping has been beneficial for middle cerebral artery (MCA) and anterior communicating artery (AComA) aneurysms. Meanwhile, coiling for the posterior circulation carries a higher risk of rupture and rebleeding. In quantitative meta-analysis, coiling showed a significant reduction of mortality as compared to clipping, with a pooled RR (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; P = 0.05; I² = 48%). Favorable functional outcome was seen as more significant in coiling than clipping (RR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.80-1.01; I² = 25.7%; τ² = 0.0052; P = 0.224) using the random-effects model. The subgroup analysis for AComA aneurysms indicated that coiling seemed to lead to safer results (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.75-1.04), while for MCA aneurysms, clipping appeared to be better (RR = 1.72; 95% CI: 0.78-3.77). In the case of internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysm, coiling has been associated significantly with a lower rate of mortality and dependency (RR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.75), and the posterior circulation did not reveal any association of outcome with either treatment (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.11-8.86). The evidence suggests that coiling has been beneficial in terms of overall mortality reduction and better functional outcomes. However, clipping has shown effectiveness for MCA aneurysms, and coiling has proven to be a slightly safer modality for AComA and a significantly preferable modality for ICA aneurysms. No significant association of outcome was found among the posterior circulation, clipping, or coiling.
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.