Trial reportNeuroradiology2026
Association of embolization branch selection on middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma: a secondary analysis of the MAGIC-MT trial.
Trial report in Neuroradiology, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundMiddle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) is a novel minimally invasive technique that has been proven effective in reducing the recurrence and reoperation risk of chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH). However, the specific association of embolization branch location and the number of embolized branches on efficacy and safety remains unclear.
methodsThis secondary analysis was based on data from the multicenter, randomized MAGIC-MT trial, including 349 patients with cSDH treated with MMAE. Patients were categorized according to embolization site into distal branch group, proximal trunk group, and combined group; and according to the number of embolized branches into single-branch and multi-branch groups. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with ≥ 50% hematoma volume reduction at 90 days postoperatively. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in maximum hematoma thickness and midline shift, changes in EQ-5D utility scores, the proportion of patients with stable or improved modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores, hematoma recurrence or progression, incidence of adverse events, and reoperation rates. Outcomes were compared across different embolization sites and numbers of embolized branches to evaluate their association on the efficacy and safety of MMAE.
resultsAmong the 349 enrolled patients (median age 69 years; 81.1% male), the primary efficacy outcome (≥ 50% hematoma volume reduction at 90 days) was achieved in 97.1% of patients, while the incidence of the primary safety outcome (serious adverse events) was 12.0%. Univariate analysis showed no significant differences in these efficacy or safety outcomes between groups stratified by embolization site or number of embolized branches. After adjustment for potential confounders, multivariable analysis confirmed that the embolization site was not significantly associated with serious adverse events, recurrence/progression, or reoperation. Similarly, the number of embolized branches showed no significant association with any outcomes after adjustment.
conclusionsThis secondary analysis indicates that neither embolization site nor number of branches demonstrates a significant association with 90-day postoperative efficacy or safety outcomes in MMAE for cSDH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41405723What 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.