Risk of recurrence of subdural hematoma after EMMA vs surgical drainage – Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a common and debilitating neurological condition whose treatments, including burr hole drainage and craniotomy, suffer from high rates of recurrence and complication. Embolization of the middle meningeal artery (EMMA) is a promising minimally invasive approach to manage CSDH in a broad set of patients. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EMMA, a database search was conducted including the terms "subdural hematoma; embolization; embolized; middle meningeal" was performed and yielded a total of 260 results. Following exclusion based on predefined criteria, a total of four studies were identified and outcomes including recurrence rates and complication rates were extracted for analysis. RESULTS: = 888 patients. The relative risk of CSDH recurrence in the EMMA (3.5%) compared to control group (23.5%) was significantly reduced when EMMA was performed (risk ratio = 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.67). In addition, rates of complication were not significantly different between patients with conventional therapy and those who received EMMA (OR = 0.77; 95 confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.99). CONCLUSION: Based on limited data, EMMA reduces the risk of recurrence by 20% compared to surgical treatment for CSDH.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".