SynthesisActa neurologica Belgica2026
Microvascular decompression in glossopharyngeal neuralgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery for central nervous system lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Review
- Bilateral nervus intermedius neuralgia with neurovascular contact: a case report highlighting hypertension and eczema as potential precipitating factors.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
objectiveGlossopharyngeal neuralgia (GPN) is a rare craniofacial pain disorder causing paroxysmal throat and ear pain. For medically refractory cases, microvascular decompression (MVD) targets the underlying neurovascular compression and offers a potentially curative treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of MVD for GPN and identify predictors of outcome.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted up to August 24, 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with clinically or radiologically confirmed GPN treated with MVD. Pooled estimates were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models, and heterogeneity, publication bias, and meta-regression analyses were performed.
resultsTwenty-five studies encompassing 1,009 patients were analyzed. The pooled rate of initial complete pain relief was 94.2% (95% CI: 90.2-97.3%), and long-term complete relief was 92.1% (95% CI: 86.9-96.2%). Pain recurrence occurred in 2.3% (95% CI: 0.5-4.8%), and permanent complications in 1.7% (95% CI: 0.2-4.2%). Meta-regression identified longer disease duration and prior MVD as negative predictors, while arterial compression and older age favored better outcomes.
conclusionMVD provides excellent and durable pain relief with minimal morbidity, confirming its role as the gold-standard treatment for classical GPN. Prospective, standardized studies are warranted to refine patient selection and optimize outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41428184What 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.