ArticleCureus2022
Cerebrospinal Fluid Diversion for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension: A United Kingdom and Ireland Survey on Practice Variation.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Is There a Place for Cerebrospinal Fluid External Lumbar Drainage in Posttraumatic Intracranial Hypertension? Pros, Cons, and Uncertainties.Neurocritical care · 2025Article
- Management of Traumatic Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis: A United Kingdom and Ireland Survey on Practice Variation.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- External Lumbar Drainage for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established means for achieving control of intracranial pressure (ICP), aimed at improving intracranial homeostasis. The literature and anecdotal reports suggest a variation in practice between neurosurgical centres internationally, with current guidelines advocating ventricular drainage over lumbar drainage. We sought to establish the current neurosurgical practice in the United Kingdom regarding the methods of ICP control in TBI. Methods A 20-point survey was distributed electronically to British and Irish neurosurgeons after ratification by the Society of British Neurological Surgeons. Questions were directed at the clinician's opinion and experience of lumbar drain usage in patients with TBI: frequency, rationale, and experience of complications. Questions on lumbar drain usage in neurovascular patients were asked for practice comparison. Results Thirty-six responses from 21 neurosurgical centres were returned. Twenty-three per cent (23%) of responders reported using lumbar drains for refractory ICP in TBI patients: six units use lumbar drains and 15 do not. Three units showed partial usage, with mixed "yes/no" responses between consultants. Concerns of tonsillar herniation and familiarity with EVD were commonly given reasons against the usage of lumbar drains. Fifty-six per cent (56%) reported use in neurovascular patients. Conclusion This contemporary practice survey demonstrates mixed practice across the UK and within some centres. Responses and survey feedback demonstrate that the use of lumbar drains in TBI is a polarising topic. The variety of practice between and within neurosurgical units supports consideration of the prospective study of CSF diversion methods for control of refractory ICP in patients with TBI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.