SynthesisBrain and behavior2026
Minimally Invasive Hematoma Evacuation for Acute Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a severe form of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality. While surgical evacuation aims to reduce hematoma burden and improve outcomes, its clinical benefit over medical management remains uncertain. Previous systematic reviews have evaluated a broad range of surgical interventions for ICH; however, evidence specific to MIS remains less clearly defined. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive hematoma evacuation in patients with acute spontaneous supratentorial ICH.
methodsThis meta-analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and Cochrane recommendations. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception to February 2026. We included randomized controlled trials that compared minimally invasive hematoma evacuation with medical or conventional surgical management. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were pooled using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 12 RCTs involving over 2302 patients were included. Minimally invasive hematoma evacuation significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97; p = 0.02) and 6-month mortality (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.96; p = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in 7-day or 30-day mortality, although a trend favoring the intervention was noted. Functional outcomes, including mRS 0-1 and mRS 0-3, did not improve significantly. Among secondary outcomes, minimally invasive approaches were associated with greater hematoma volume reduction (MD = 62.47; p = 0.04) but also a higher risk of rebleeding (RR = 2.37; p = 0.002) and cardiac events (RR = 5.08; p = 0.009). No significant differences were found in ischemic stroke, renal failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, seizures, urinary tract infections, or length of hospital and ICU stay.
conclusionsMinimally invasive hematoma evacuation significantly decreases mortality in patients with spontaneous ICH, especially with endoscopic techniques; however, it does not markedly enhance functional outcomes and may elevate the risk of complications such as rebleeding and cardiac events. These results underscore the necessity for meticulous patient selection and additional high-caliber trials to enhance treatment strategies.
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.