English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Review question / Objective: Did adult patients with intracranial aneurysms (patient population) who underwent flow diverter (FD, Intervention) have better clinical outcomes, higher rates of aneurysm occlusion, and lower rates of mortality and procedure related complications (outcomes) when compared with patients who received the conventional endovascular treatments (CEV, control) from January 2010 to December 2020? Eligibility criteria: The inclusion criteria are: 1. directly comparison of FD and conventional endovascular treatment, including coiling alone, stent alone, stent-assisted coiling, and balloon-assisted coiling; 2. patients ≥18 years with intracranial aneurysms; 3. detailed follow up angiographic and clinical outcomes; 4. the number of patients in two groups at least 10 patients. The exclusion criteria are:1. less than 10 participants in either group; 2. without the report of outcome variables; 3. studies primarily focus on children patients; 4. studies primarily focus on one interventional tool.

The safety and efficacy of flow diverter versus conventional endovascular treatment in intracranial aneurysm: a meta-analysis of the real-world cohort studies over last ten years