ArticleWorld neurosurgery2025
Standalone Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization Versus Medical Management for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: A Multi-Institutional and Multinational Database Study.
Article in World neurosurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Radiographic Course Following Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Chronic Subdural Hematoma.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2026Review
- In Reply to the Letter to the Editor Regarding "Standalone Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization versus Medical Management for Chronic Subdural Hematomas: A Multiinstitutional and Multinational Database Study.World neurosurgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMiddle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) has emerged as a promising treatment option for patients with chronic subdural hematomas (cSDHs). This study compares outcomes in nonsurgical cSDH patients undergoing MMAE versus those receiving medical management alone.
methodsThis multi-institutional, multinational, retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis utilized the TriNetX platform. Nonsurgical cSDH patients requiring inpatient management were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes. Outcome measures included unplanned inpatient readmissions, the need for surgical evacuation, and mortality within six months of diagnosis.
resultsAmong 253,108 cSDH patients, 163,465 required inpatient management, with 769 patients undergoing MMAE and 162,696 receiving medical management alone. The MMAE cohort had significantly lower odds of requiring subsequent surgery, both before and after propensity score matching (odds ratio: 0.472, 95% confidence interval: 0.235-0.946, P = 0.031). Although MMAE patients had lower mortality (12.1%) compared to those receiving medical management (15.0%) before matching, this difference was not statistically significant after matching (odds ratio: 0.807, 95% confidence interval: 0.601-1.084, P = 0.154). No difference was observed in unplanned readmissions.
conclusionsNonsurgical cSDH patients who received stand-alone MMAE had lower odds of requiring subsequent surgery, lower mortality rates (though not statistically significant), and similar odds of unplanned inpatient readmissions compared to those treated with medical management alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.