SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Embolizing the middle meningeal artery to treat chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comparative studies on the middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization versus conventional management (CM) to treat chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) yield inconsistent findings. Objective: This systematic review sought to meta-analyze studies comparing MMA embolization versus CM for treating CSDH. Methods: Terms including "hematoma", "subdural", "chronic", "meningeal arteries", "embolization", and "therapeutic" were applied to search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from their inception to July 11, 2025. After independent reading, screening, and evaluation by two researchers, data were analyzed and processed using RevMan v5.4. Results: Initially, 1,883 articles were retrieved. After eliminating 692 duplicates and excluding 1,087 articles that are conference abstracts, letters, or have ineligible research objectives, interventions, or outcomes, 104 articles were identified as potentially eligible. These articles were subsequently screened according to the eligibility criteria, and 20 studies were ultimately included. According to the meta-analysis, in the 20 studies involving 255,057 patients, 181,993 (71.4%) and 73,064 (28.6%) patients received MMA embolization and CM, respectively. MMA embolization performed better than CM in terms of treatment failure (relative risk [RR] = 0.40 [0.18-0.87], Conclusion: MMA embolization may lower the failure rate of treatment and cut the demand for surgical salvage without elevating the risk. Therefore, MMA embolization may be considered in the management of CSDH. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero, PROSPERO CRD420251090976.
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.