ArticleClinical neuroradiology2026
Liquid Embolic Volume Does Not Predict Outcome After Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematoma.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 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
70 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMiddle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) is increasingly used for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), but the relationship between injected liquid-embolic volume and outcomes is unclear. We evaluated dose-outcome associations and searched for a minimum effective dose.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter cohort included 313 patients treated with liquid embolic agents at 12 MESH Registry centers from 2016 to 2024. MMAE was performed alone in 172 patients (55.0%) and adjunctively with surgical evacuation in 141 (45.0%). Dose was assessed as total injected volume per patient and normalized to middle meningeal artery diameter, baseline hematoma thickness, and estimated hematoma volume. The primary outcome was a 180-day composite of retreatment, residual or recurrent hematoma > 10 mm, or death. Logistic regression with multiple imputation, restricted cubic splines, and sensitivity analyses evaluated associations and nonlinearity.
resultsMedian injected volume was 0.60 mL (interquartile range, 0.50-0.90). Center accounted for 44.5% of variation in log volume, whereas hematoma burden accounted for 0.3%. No dose metric was significantly associated with the primary outcome or 90-day recurrence/reoperation. For absolute volume, the odds ratio per interquartile-range increment was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.16; p = 0.24). No reliable minimum effective dose was identified. Findings remained consistent across sensitivity analyses and treatment indications (interaction p = 0.30). Procedural complications occurred in 6.4% and were not dose-associated.
conclusionWithin the observed range, injected volume alone was not a consistent determinant of outcome and should not be a procedural target after a satisfactory angiographic endpoint. Future studies should evaluate embolic distribution, distal penetration, and vascular territory coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878798What 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.