ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Preliminary study on optimizing head position for endovascular treatment of anterior communicating artery aneurysms.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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: To evaluate the effects of optimized head positioning on procedural efficiency, device utilization, safety, and short-term postoperative activities of daily living in patients undergoing endovascular treatment for anterior communicating artery aneurysms (ACoAA), compared with conventional head positioning, and thereby assess its clinical value. Methods: In this single-center randomized controlled study, 86 patients with ACoAAs scheduled for endovascular treatment at Guangyuan Central Hospital, Affiliated to North Sichuan Medical College, between September 2022 and September 2025 were randomly assigned to a conventional-position group or an optimized-position group. One patient in the conventional group did not undergo the procedure; therefore, 85 patients were included in the final analysis (conventional group, Results: The final analysis included 85 patients. The baseline data of the two groups were comparable. Compared with the conventional group, the optimized group had shorter total procedure times for both stent-assisted coil embolization and standalone coil embolization, shorter catheter-placement and coil-embolization times, and a lower stent-use rate (44.2% vs. 66.7%, Conclusion: Optimized head positioning was associated with shorter procedure times and lower stent use, without an evident increase in perioperative complications. Several short-term neurological and functional measures also favored the optimized position. This strategy is simple and readily implementable, supporting its potential for broader clinical application.
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.