ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Surgical intervention versus conservative care in severe hypertensive pontine hemorrhage: a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypertensive pontine hemorrhage (HPH) carries high mortality and disability, with no standardized treatment guidelines. This study compared treatment efficacy for severe HPH and identified prognostic factors to guide clinical decisions. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive severe HPH patients (GCS 4-7, hematoma volume ≥ 5 mL, isolated pontine hemorrhage) treated at our center (2020-2024), stratified into pharmacological therapy, stereotactic drainage, and craniotomy evacuation groups. To eliminate treatment choice confounding bias, we performed 1:1 Propensity score matching (PSM) to generate an unbiased 112-patient cohort (56 pharmacological, 56 surgical), with standardized mean difference < 0.10 defining excellent intergroup balance. All core analyses were performed exclusively on this PSM-matched unbiased cohort. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) was used only as a sensitivity analysis to validate primary finding robustness. We assessed 30/90-day mortality and unfavorable functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 4), and recorded perioperative complications, ICU and total hospital stay for all patients. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent prognostic factors. Results: Post-PSM, all baseline covariates were well-balanced, eliminating treatment choice confounding bias. In the matched cohort, the surgical group had significantly lower 30/90-day mortality and 90-day unfavorable functional outcomes versus the pharmacological group (all Conclusion: In this PSM-matched cohort, surgery correlated with significantly reduced 30/90-day mortality and 90-day unfavorable functional outcome risk, with stereotactic drainage and craniotomy showing divergent safety-efficacy profiles. Findings do not constitute formal treatment recommendations, but may inform individualized clinical decisions based on patient and hematoma characteristics. This retrospective single-center study cannot establish definitive causality; results should be interpreted cautiously, with large-scale multi-center prospective trials in unbiased populations needed to verify robustness.
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.