SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of flow diversion versus stent-assisted coiling in posterior circulation aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Posterior circulation aneurysms are difficult to treat due to complex anatomy and perforator-rich territories, and the relative safety and efficacy of flow diversion (FD) versus stent-based strategies remain uncertain. Methods: This meta-analysis adhered to PRISMA and was registered in PROSPERO (No. 1302088). PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 24, 2025. We included patients with posterior circulation intracranial aneurysms treated with FD versus stents/SAC strategies. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs using Mantel-Haenszel methods. Results: Heterogeneity was evaluated with Discussion: FD showed a lower rate of immediate complete occlusion (RR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.29;
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.