ReviewJournal of neuroendovascular therapy2026
Therapeutic Outcomes of Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematoma.
Review in Journal of neuroendovascular therapy, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is becoming increasingly common in the aging population, and preventing its recurrence after standard surgical drainage remains a significant clinical challenge. Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option to interrupt the supply of neovessels to the outer membrane, thereby halting the cycle of inflammation and rebleeding. This review summarizes the latest findings on the therapeutic outcomes of MMAE, with a particular focus on 3 major randomized controlled trials reported in 2024: the STEM, EMBOLISE, and MAGIC-MT trials. Although these studies collectively suggest that MMAE can reduce the risk of treatment failure and recurrence, the results vary in terms of efficacy across different patient populations and study designs. The EMBOLISE trial demonstrated a significant reduction in recurrence requiring reoperation, whereas other trials adopted broader outcome definitions, which may partly explain the heterogeneity in reported efficacy. Consequently, MMAE may not be suitable for universal adoption across all patient populations. The procedure has a favorable safety profile and a low complication rate. Technical factors influencing success include the use of liquid embolic agents for distal penetration and the potential benefits of the transradial approach in reducing postoperative delirium in older patients. In conclusion, although MMAE is a valuable addition to CSDH management, a comprehensive evaluation is essential to optimize clinical outcomes.
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.