ReviewBrain & spine2026
Early surgery vs. conservative management for traumatic intracerebral hematoma: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
Review in Brain & spine, 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
Introduction: The management of traumatic intracerebral hematoma (TICH) remains controversial. This Bayesian meta-analysis evaluated the effects of early surgery versus conservative treatment on mortality, unfavourable functional outcome, and hospital length of stay. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 15 December 2025 (PROSPERO CRD420251248144) for studies comparing early surgery with conservative treatment in patients with TICH. Outcomes included mortality reported at the study-specific available assessment time, ranging from the in-hospital period to 6 months, unfavourable functional outcome assessed at 3 or 6 months, and hospital length of stay. Bayesian random-effects models were fitted using vague priors for overall effects and informative or weakly informative priors for between-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses with alternative prior specifications were performed. Posterior probabilities (PPs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and posterior predictive distributions were estimated. Results: Four studies, including two randomized controlled trials and two observational studies comprising 664 patients were included. Early surgery showed no clear reduction in mortality (OR 0.90; 95% CrI [0.50; 1.56]; PP OR < 1: 65%) or unfavourable functional outcome (OR 1.16; 95% CrI [0.57; 2.43]; PP OR < 1: 31%). Early surgery was associated with a low probability of reducing hospital length of stay (MD 3.00 days; 95% CrI [-0.79; 7.18]; PP MD < 0: 5%). Subgroup analyses suggested potential differences according to study design and risk of bias, although predictive distributions indicated substantial uncertainty. Conclusion: Current evidence does not demonstrate a clear benefit of routine early surgery over conservative treatment for TICH and shows an uncertain trend toward longer hospital stay, which should be interpreted cautiously given imprecision and potential confounding by indication. Early surgery should therefore be considered selectively pending further high-quality randomized evidence.
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.