ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Etiology-specific optimal timing of surgical intervention for intracranial hemorrhage: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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.
- Advances in Stereotactic Hematoma Evacuation for Hypertensive Intracerebral Hemorrhage and the Value of Multimodal Monitoring.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracranial hemorrhages (ICrH), including intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH), are life-threatening conditions leading to high mortality and long-term disability. A persistent challenge in clinical practice is identifying the most advantageous timing for surgical intervention, as existing literature reveals conflicting outcomes regarding survival, neurological recovery, and complication rates. The literature remains heterogeneous despite extensive research, presenting conflicting evidence regarding survival benefits across various surgical timeframes, from ultra-early interventions (<6 hours) to delayed interventions (>7 days). This study aimed to determine the optimal timing for surgery in intracranial bleeding by comparing outcomes across timeframes to guide evidence-based clinical decisions.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published from 2000 to 2025. Twenty-eight observational studies, including 5919 patients, were included. Data were analyzed using random-effects models in R software, with subgroup analyses based on the time windows and type of hemorrhage.
resultsSurgery performed within 24 hours significantly reduced the odds of poor Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.92) and rebleeding (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.80). The network meta-analysis indicated that surgery within 48 hours is the most effective timing for reducing mortality (P-score = 0.99). However, pairwise comparisons revealed non-significant effects (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.51-1.72), underscoring the necessity for etiology-specific interpretation. Early intervention (≤72 hours) was most beneficial in aSAH, whereas ultra-early surgery (<6 hours) in traumatic ICH showed higher mortality. Surgery delayed beyond 7 days resulted in worse functional recovery.
conclusionsEarly surgical intervention, particularly within 24-48 hours, improves outcomes in many cases of ICH. However, optimal timing varies with hemorrhage type. The findings resolve previous discrepancies by illustrating that treatment effects are contingent upon both the timeframe and the underlying pathology. Personalized timing strategies are essential, and further high-quality randomized trials are needed to refine clinical guidelines.
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.