Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping: Rebleeding
Endovascular coiling leads to higher rebleeding postprocedure up to 1 year compared with neurosurgical clipping (high certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Rebleeding postprocedure up to 1 year · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling leads to higher rebleeding postprocedure up to 1 year compared with neurosurgical clipping (high certainty). Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.83 [1.04, 3.23] | 4 studies · 2458 participants | High |
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Rebleeding postprocedure up to 10 years · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling may leads to higher rebleeding postprocedure up to 10 years compared with neurosurgical clipping (low certainty). Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 2.69 [1.5, 4.81] | 1 study · 1323 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.