ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma: the role of timing and baseline hematoma volume.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMiddle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) has shown efficacy for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH), but optimal patient selection and timing (pre-, post-surgical, or standalone) remain unclear. This study evaluated the impact of volume, and embolization timing on outcomes at discharge and follow-up.
methodsThe study included 135 patients undergoing MMAE; only those with complete radiological data were analyzed. To reduce baseline clinical bias, patients were stratified into quartiles (Q) based on preoperative hematoma volume. Changes in functional status were assessed by calculating the difference in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score between admission and discharge (ΔmRS
resultsAt admission, mRS distribution differed across quartiles (p = 0.005), with better functional status more common in Q1 and higher mRS (≥ 3) increasing in larger volumes. At discharge, outcomes varied by embolization timing (p < 0.001). Stand-alone treatment was associated with greater clinical stability, especially in Q1, while improvement increased with hematoma volume in the pre-surgical group. The post-surgical group showed a milder pattern of severity compared to the pre-surgical group. The same trends were observed at follow-up. On multivariable analysis, admission mRS was the strongest predictor of poor outcome (mRS ≥ 3) (OR 6.209, p < 0.001), with age also significant (OR 1.078, p = 0.027). Preoperative hematoma volume was the only independent predictor of reoperation (OR 1.017, p = 0.017).
conclusionDischarge outcome was mainly driven by admission mRS and age, while preoperative hematoma volume was associated with reoperation risk. In patients with lower hematoma burden (Q1-Q2), stand-alone MMAE showed greater early functional stability than pre- or post-surgical strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377421What 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.