SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2026
Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of dural sealants in preventing complications after craniotomy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe efficacy and safety of various dural sealants for dural closure have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, their associations with postcraniotomy complications remain to be compared.
methodsA Bayesian network meta-analysis (BNMA) was designed on the basis of studies published in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science through July 9, 2025. Quality assessment was conducted using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) scale. BNMA was performed in R 4.5.1 with the "GeMTC" package, with SUCRA values and league tables generated to display comprehensive pairwise comparisons among different sealants. The certainty of evidence for each network estimate was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.
resultsEleven studies (3094 patients who underwent craniotomy) were included. TissuePatchDural (RR = 0.03, 95% CrI (0.0007, 0.42), SUCRA = 90.52%), autologous materials (RR = 0.09, 95% CrI (0.003, 0.69), SUCRA = 73.07%) and synthetic hydrogels (RR = 0.16, 95% CrI (0.04, 0.48), SUCRA = 59.68%) had 95% CrIs excluding 1, suggesting a lower risk of postcraniotomy cerebrospinal fluid leakage than for conventional closure alone. Autologous materials showed a favorable probability for meningitis prevention (RR = 0.13, 95% CrI (0.02, 0.74), SUCRA = 82.70%). The SUCRA values indicated favorable probabilities for TissuePatchDural to prevent surgical site infection and pseudomeningocele and for autologous materials to reduce the risk of unplanned interventions, although these secondary outcomes lacked statistical significance.
conclusionThe results of this BNMA suggest that compared with conventional closure alone, TissuePatchDural has a greater probability of reducing cerebrospinal fluid leakage, whereas autologous materials showed favorable efficacy signals for postoperative meningitis.
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.