ArticleClinical neuroradiology2026
Perceived Safety and Efficacy of Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization: Results from an International Survey.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 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.
- The Need for Training and Reporting Standards in Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- From Perceived Safety to Implementation-Grade Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematoma.Clinical neuroradiology · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMiddle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) is a promising new treatment for chronic SDH (cSDH). We conducted an international multi-disciplinary survey among physicians involved in the care of cSDH patients to understand the perceived safety profile and efficacy of MMAE in real-world clinical practice.
methodsThe survey was distributed via several neurointerventional society mailing lists. We collected data on participant demographics, practice patterns, volumes and experience, perceived MMAE safety, complication tolerance, and decision-making. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and multi-variable regression.
resultsFive-hundred-seventy-seven physicians completed the survey between November 20th, 2024 and May 1st, 2025 (median age 42.0 years, 489 [84.7%] male, comprised of endovascular neurosurgeons [185/577, 32.1%], interventional neuroradiologists [181/577, 31.4%]). The recent positive MMAE trials led to cSDH management, particularly in among endovascular neurosurgeons (adjusted odds ratio 2.56 [95% CI 1.51-4.35] compared to interventional neuroradioligists [reference]), and less so among other specialties. There were region-specific differences in rates of practice change and a negative association of physician age and practice change (adjusted odds ratio 0.72 [95% CI 0.53-0.99]). Most participants would now consider MMAE in patients with a new cSDH diagnosis with high perceived recurrence risk (192/424 [45.3%]), while 101/424 (23.8%) would consider MMAE for all cSDH patients. The highest acceptable risk for major complications was 4.0% (median, IQR, 2-5%), although this differed between regions and specialties.
conclusionRecent trials on MMAE for cSDH treatment have changed practice patterns of cSDH management globally. MMAE is now considered a viable option by most physicians even for patients with first-time cSDH. Most would tolerate a maximum of 4% major complications, although rates of practice change and acceptable risk thresholds vary by region and specialty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41925742What 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.