Neuropsychological function after endovascular and neurosurgical treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is treated with either surgical clipping or endovascular coiling, though the latter is the preferred treatment method given its more favorable functional outcomes. However, neuropsychological functioning after treatment is rarely taken into account. In this meta-analysis, the authors synthesized relevant data from the literature and compared neuropsychological functioning in patients after coiling and clipping of SAH. They hypothesized that the coiled patients would outperform the clipped patients; that group differences would be greater with higher posterior circulation rupture rates, in older patients, and in more recent publications; that group differences would be smaller with greater rates of middle cerebral artery (MCA) rupture; and that anterior communicating artery (ACoA) rupture rates would not influence effect sizes. METHODS The MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for clinical studies that compared neuropsychological functioning after either endovascular coiling or surgical clipping for SAH. Hedge's g and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects models. Patients who had undergone coiling or clipping were compared on test performance in 8 neuropsychological domains: executive functions, language, attention/processing speed, verbal memory, visual memory, spatial memory, visuospatial functions, and intelligence. Patients were also compared with healthy controls, and meta-regressions were used to explore the relation between effect sizes and publication year, delay between treatment and neuropsychological testing, mean patient age, and rates of posterior circulation, ACoA, and MCA ruptures. RESULTS Thirteen studies with 396 clipped cases, 314 coiled cases, and 169 healthy controls were included in the study. The coil-treated patients outperformed the clip-treated patients on executive function (g = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.25) and language tests (g = 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.39), and all patients were impaired relative to healthy controls (g ranged from -0.93 to -0.29). Coiled patients outperformed clipped patients to a greater degree in more recent publications, over longer posttreatment testing delays, and among older patients. Higher rates of posterior circulation and MCA aneurysms were associated with smaller group differences, while ACoA rupture rates did not influence effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS Coiling of SAH may promote superior neuropsychological functioning under certain circumstances and could have applications for the specialized care of SAH patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".