SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of cluster headache: evidence from a 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. 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
Cluster headache (CH) is a highly disabling primary headache disorder, and a subset of patients remain refractory to medical or neuromodulatory therapies. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been explored as a minimally invasive alternative, but reported outcomes are inconsistent. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to September 15, 2025, identified eligible studies. Treatment techniques varied across studies, including radiosurgical targeting of the gasserian ganglion or the trigeminal nerve at different locations, with or without concomitant targeting of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG). Across five studies involving 51 patients, SRS showed a notable early benefit. The initial complete pain-free rate was 60.1% (95% CI: 24.4-91.3%), and the initial adequate relief rate was 80% (95% CI, 67.0-91.0%). At last follow-up before salvage, complete relief decreased to 28.8% (95% CI: 0-89.3%), and adequate relief to 41.7% (95% CI: 0.01-91.8%), demonstrating limited durability. The pain-recurrence rate was 59.8% (95% CI: 22.9-92.1%), and salvage therapy was required in 19% (95% CI: 7-34%). Adverse radiation effects (AREs) were common, and studies with longer follow-up reported high rates of permanent trigeminal sensory deficits, including anesthesia dolorosa, whereas studies with shorter follow-up likely underestimated late toxicity. SRS may provide early pain reduction in selected patients with medically refractory CH; however, the literature demonstrates a high rate of permanent trigeminal nerve injury, warranting cautious and highly selective use. SRS may serve as a selective or temporizing option when neuromodulatory therapies are not feasible. Limitations include small sample sizes, heterogeneous targets and dosimetry, and inconsistent definitions of outcomes. Future studies should employ prospective multicenter designs, standardized outcome metrics, optimized target planning, and extended follow-up to enhance patient selection.
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.