Trial reportNeurosurgical review2026
Comparison of second-generation hydrogel embolic coils and bare platinum coils in ruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04988503 (Bare Platinum Coils Versus Second-generation Hydrocoils for the Endovascular Treatment of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms), which is not on this 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.
Bare Platinum Coils Versus Second-generation Hydrocoils for the Endovascular Treatment of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: a Randomized Controlled Study
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To reduce the recurrence of cerebral aneurysms, second-generation hydrogel embolic coils (HECs) have been developed. We aimed to compare the impacts of bare platinum coils (BPCs) and HECs on the recurrence of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs). In this study, participants with an RIA were randomly assigned to the BPC or HEC group at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was any recurrence during the 12-month follow-up period. The secondary outcomes included retreatment, procedural complications, delayed cerebral ischemia, favorable clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 2), ventriculoperitoneal shunt operation, and the coil’s ease of manipulation. After excluding 11 patients, 57 patients were ultimately included for analysis (BPC, n = 26; HEC, n = 31). The primary outcome was not statistically significant between 2 groups (BPC group: 10/26 [38.5%]; HEC group: 6/31 [19.4%]; P = 0.144). The secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups, except for the coil’s ease of manipulation (P = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the primary outcome (rate of recurrence [OR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.13–1.61; P = 0.223]) or in terms of the secondary outcomes, including retreatment (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.12-5.00; P = 0.766), favorable clinical outcomes (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.16–6.90; P = 0.957), or VP shunt operation (OR = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01–1.54; P = 0.102). Among patients who underwent coil embolization for an RIA, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the rates of recurrence, retreatment, favorable clinical outcomes or VP shunt operation during the 12-month follow-up period. Given the small sample size, these results should be interpreted with caution. This study is a registered clinical trial. It was prospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04988503) on July 23, 2021.
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.