SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Does adding decompressive craniectomy to hematoma evacuation improve the outcome for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hematoma? A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of unilateral and bilateral drainage in bilateral chronic subdural hematoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To synthesize the data about whether decompressive craniectomy (DC) combined with hematoma evacuation (HE) improves outcomes compared to HE alone in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hematoma (SICH). A thorough search was conducted in four databases until July 19, 2024. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for all studies comparing the outcome of DC with HE versus HE alone in SICH patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Statistical analysis included meta-analysis and meta-regression using RevMan, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity. Our primary outcomes were favorable outcomes, defined by Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-3 or Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) 4-5 or Barthel Index (BI) > 75% and mortality. A total of 11 studies involving 1,363 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the DC with HE and HE alone groups at three months for favorable outcome (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: [0.71, 1.1], P = 0.27) and at one month for mortality (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: [0.61, 1.15], P = 0.28), with consistent findings across other durations. DC with HE showed a significant reduction in midline shift compared to HE alone. No significant differences were observed in intracranial pressure, hospital stay, reoperation rates, or postoperative complications. Combining DC with HE does not offer significant benefits over HE alone in most cases of SICH. Further large, standardized trials are needed to clarify the role of DC in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41535600What 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.