Updated systematic review of current randomised controlled trials in chronic subdural haematoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition with an increasing incidence due to an aging population. Given the expanding research landscape, assessing the state of recent trials is essential. This systematic review updates a previous review, which included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 2019, by summarizing recently published and ongoing RCTs in CSDH, highlighting key areas of investigation and identifying directions for future research. METHODS: Clinical trial registries - including the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, WHO ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov, and Clinical Trials Information System - were systematically searched for RCTs on CSDH from June 1, 2019, to February 18, 2025. Both published and ongoing trials were included in this review. RESULTS: This review identified 41 recently published RCTs and 54 ongoing RCTs, compared to 26 ongoing trials in 2019. Of the earlier review, eleven studies have been published, five remain active, and the remainder were either abandoned or did not adhere to their initial RCT design. Middle meningeal artery embolisation (MMAE) has become the most extensively studied intervention, with active trials increasing from 2 in 2019 to 21 in 2025. Trials investigating perioperative management (3 versus 7) and surgical techniques (5 versus 10) have also increased. In contrast, corticosteroid trials have decreased (7 versus 3), likely reflecting findings from recent high-impact studies. Research on tranexamic acid has increased (5 versus 7) as have studies on other pharmacological agents (4 versus 8). CONCLUSIONS: The number of ongoing RCTs in CSDH has increased substantially, with a notable shift in research focus. MMAE now dominates the field, though the surge in studies may suggest research saturation. Future investigations may benefit from more collaborative efforts, consolidating resources into fewer, but larger and adequately powered trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".