ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Endoscopic-Assisted evacuation vs. burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of endoscopic-assisted evacuation vs. burr-hole drainage methods in the chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive surgical cases of CSDH treated at Shanxi Provincial People's Hospital. After eligibility screening, 40 patients who underwent endoscopic-assisted evacuation and 158 who underwent burr-hole drainage were included in the analysis. Postoperative outcomes were systematically evaluated across intraoperative parameters, clinical and laboratory measures, procedural costs, and length of hospital stay. Results: Patients who underwent endoscopic-assisted evacuation had significantly lower residual hematoma rates compared to those who underwent burr-hole drainage (35.00% vs. 54.78%, Conclusion: Endoscope-assisted evacuation enables more thorough clearance of hematoma and leads to better recovery for patients, without increasing procedural trauma or postoperative complications, though its higher cost may limit accessibility. These findings may help inform surgical decision-making and resource allocation.
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.