Elfil, Mohamed

Background Funding may impact the quality and findings of systematic reviews (SRs). We aimed to compare the methodological quality of funded and non-funded SRs that investigated the outcomes in ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search strategy in different databases, including Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline (including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection to retrieve all relevant SRs. Random sequence generation matched each funded SR with a non-funded one. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 tool was used to assess the bias and quality of the included SRs. We also used uni- and multivariate analysis to perform our analysis, and results were expressed in odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results We retrieved 150 articles, which were randomized and matched into 100 SRs, including 50 funded and 50 non-funded studies. By multivariate analysis, we found that including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (OR: 5.7; 95% CI: 1.8–17.8; p = 0.003) and reporting conflict of interests (OR: 5.2; 95 CI: 1.1–24; p = 0.036) were the only significant differences between funded and non-funded SRs. No significant differences were found regarding the overall confidence for low-quality (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.09–3.2; p = 0.49) and moderate/high-quality SRs (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.02–1.87; p = 0.14). Conclusion Funded studies tend to include RCTs more often and report conflict of interests with no significant impact on overall confidence.

Background The Contour is a new generation intrasaccular flow disruption tool that aims to cover the aneurysm neck and is sized according to the neck diameter. While several case series have been published, no literature review has been performed on this promising device. Objective To assess the safety and effectiveness profile of the Contour Neurovascular System for wide-necked aneurysms. Methods We followed the recommendations of the PRISMA checklist Four databases were searched with a supplemental manual search. All data were analyzed using R software version 4.2.1. Results We finally included six studies with 131 treated aneurysms. The overall procedural time was 97.27 (95% CI = 70.07–124.47) minutes, ranging from 78.9 to 136.0 min. The pooled adequate occlusion rate was 84.21% (95% CI = 75.45–90.25), and the overall functional independence rate was 94.74% (87.97–97.79). The overall adverse event rate was 4.70 (95% CI = 3.24–6.76), varying among different events from 0.78 to 8.53%. Thromboembolic events were the most commonly encountered in 8.53% of the patients (95% CI = 4.78–14.74), followed by headache and minor stroke with incidence rates of 5.88 (95% CI = 2.83–11.83) and 4.35 (95% CI = 1.41–12.63), respectively. The overall procedural time in studies using the Contour system only was 86.17 (95% CI = 68.70–10.64) minutes, while it was 136 (95% CI = 90.96–181.04) in the Contour-assisted coiling procedures. However, both techniques were comparable regarding adequate occlusion rates and functional independence. Conclusion With the anticipation of future studies, the Contour Neurovascular System is a safe and effective treatment option for wide-necked intracranial aneurysms.