ReviewStroke research and treatment2026
Stereotactic Hematoma Aspiration Versus Standard Treatment for Brainstem Hemorrhage-Updated Meta-Analysis, Meta-Regression, and Trial Sequential Analysis.
Review in Stroke research and treatment, 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
Introduction: The standard treatment of brainstem hemorrhage (BH) remains a controversial subject, and the optimal treatment strategy remains unclear. Stereotactic aspiration of a hematoma is one of the most used techniques in BH management. This review aims to update existing knowledge on the comparison of aspiration and standard treatments for BH. Methods: This review updates a previous meta-analysis on this subject. Four medical databases were searched from inception, and meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were applied for comparison. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this review. There was a significant reduction in total mortality (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.41, Conclusions: Stereotactic surgery is becoming a promising method for the treatment of BH. The results of this synthesis suggest that patients undergoing invasive treatment have higher survival rates and better functional outcomes compared with usual care. Although stereotactic aspiration yielded a higher survival in the meta-analysis, quality concerns, false-positive results for patients with mRS ≤ 3, and heterogeneity need to be acknowledged.
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.