SynthesisNeuroradiology2026
Endovascular coiling vs. microsurgical clipping for ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms: an updated meta-analysis with meta-regression.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile both endovascular coiling and microsurgical clipping are extensively used and recognized procedures, they have different advantages and disadvantages in terms of procedural risks, long-term neurological prognosis, and complications. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness and safety of endovascular coiling with microsurgical clipping in patients with ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library until February 2025. Studies comparing endovascular coiling and microsurgical clipping for managing ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms were retrieved. The main endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included good outcomes, poor outcome complications, and operative outcomes. The risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed employing random-effects models.
results34 studies, incorporating 4,107 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Coiling revealed a higher risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.291 with 95% CI [1.054, 1.582]), primarily in short-term follow-up (RR: 1.50 with 95% CI [1.15, 1.95]). However, no significant differences were observed in mortality rates according to the specific aneurysm location. Neither poor outcome (RR: 0.90 with 95% CI [0.74, 1.08]) nor good outcome (RR: 1.06 with 95% CI [0.98, 1.14]) differed significantly between treatments. Coiling demonstrated reduced risks of intraoperative rupture (RR: 0.55 with 95% CI [0.34, 0.88]), ischemic infarction (RR: 0.76 with 95% CI [0.6, 0.97]), and seizure (RR: 0.42 with 95% CI [0.18, 0.97]). However, coiling was associated with lower complete occlusion rates (RR: 0.76 with 95% [CI 0.66, 0.87]) and higher incomplete occlusion (RR: 2.98 with 95% CI [2.03, 4.38]).
conclusionEndovascular coiling for ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms is associated with fewer perioperative complications, including reduced risks of intraoperative rupture, ischemic infarction, and seizures. However, it carries a higher risk of short-term mortality, lower rates of complete occlusion, and higher rates of incomplete occlusion compared with microsurgical clipping. Despite these differences, both techniques achieve comparable long-term functional outcomes, supporting an individualized, patient-centered treatment approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41212193What 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.