ReviewSurgical neurology international2026
Middle cerebral artery dissecting aneurysms: A systematic review of presentation, etiology, and prognosis.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dissecting aneurysms of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) are rare, under-recognized vascular lesions with diverse etiologies and complex management pathways. The current literature is fragmented, lacking a consensus on optimal treatment and outcome predictors. This study aims to systematically review and synthesize all reported cases of MCA dissecting aneurysms, analyzing clinical features, anatomical patterns, therapeutic strategies, and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comprehensive literature searches were performed across PubMed and Scopus databases up to June 2024. Crude estimates are reported, and meta-analysis is also performed. Results: From 878 records, 65 studies (1964-2025) met criteria, totaling 114 MCA dissecting aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm patients (mean age ≈42.8 years; pediatric 8.8%; female 54%). Hypertension (12.3%) and prior head trauma (9.6%) were common. Aneurysms most often involved M1 (38.6%), then M2 (29.8%), and M3-M4 (31.6%); right-sided 34.2%. Management was endovascular in 59 (51.8%), microsurgical in 38 (33.3%), bypass in 12 (10.5%), and conservative in 17 (15%). Overall, good outcome (modified Rankin scale: 0-2) occurred in 56 (49.1%); complete occlusion in 73 (64%); and rebleeding and mortality each 11 (9.6%). Meta-analysis showed higher occlusion with endovascular therapy (62%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.77; Conclusion: Reported outcomes of MCA dissecting aneurysms show that aneurysm occlusion is achievable with both endovascular and surgical strategies, but interpretation is limited by heterogeneity and mostly case-based data evidence.
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.