ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2022
Comparison of Suspected and Confirmed Internal External Ventricular Drain-Related Infections: A Prospective Multicenter United Kingdom Observational Study.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pragmatic evaluation of serum IL-6, PCT and CRP compared to routine CSF biomarkers and CDC/IDSA criteria in healthcare-associated Ventriculitis.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Incidence and patient-related risk factors for external ventricular drain-related cerebrospinal fluid infections.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Ventriculitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Clinical Features, Outcomes and Device Management Practices.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Performance of routine surveillance diagnostics of external ventricular drain-associated infections in a critical care setting: a retrospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Diagnosis of internal external ventricular drain (EVD)-related infections (iERI) is an area of diagnostic difficulty. Empiric treatment is often initiated on clinical suspicion. There is limited guidance around antimicrobial management of confirmed versus suspected iERI. Methods: Data on patients requiring EVD insertion were collected from 21 neurosurgical units in the United Kingdom from 2014 to 2015. Confirmed iERI was defined as clinical suspicion of infection with positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture and/or Gram stain. Cerebrospinal fluid, blood, and clinical parameters and antimicrobial management were compared between the 2 groups. Mortality and Modified Rankin Scores were compared at 30 days post-EVD insertion. Results: Internal EVD-related infection was suspected after 46 of 495 EVD insertions (9.3%), more common after an emergency insertion. Twenty-six of 46 were confirmed iERIs, mostly due to Staphylococci (16 of 26). When confirmed and suspected infections were compared, there were no differences in CSF white cell counts or glucose concentrations, nor peripheral blood white cell counts or C-reactive protein concentrations. The incidence of fever, meningism, and seizures was also similar, although altered consciousness was more common in people with confirmed iERI. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial usage was prevalent in both groups with no difference in median duration of therapy (10 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 7-24.5] for confirmed cases and 9.5 days [IQR, 5.75-14] for suspected, Conclusions: Suspected iERI could represent sterile inflammation or lower bacterial load leading to false-negative cultures. There is a need for improved microbiology diagnostics and biomarkers of bacterial infection to permit accurate discrimination and improve antimicrobial stewardship.
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.