ReviewCureus2022
External Lumbar Drainage for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 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
- Article
- Impact of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage to control intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a retrospective monocentric cohort.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Neurotrauma-From Injury to Repair: Clinical Perspectives, Cellular Mechanisms and Promoting Regeneration of the Injured Brain and Spinal Cord.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Increased Intracranial Pressure in Pediatric Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody-Associated Disease.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2024Article
- External Ventricular Drainage: A Practical Guide for Neuro-Anesthesiologists.Clinics and practice · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Considerable variation exists in the clinical practice of cerebrospinal fluid diversion for medically refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is achievable via lumbar or ventricular drainage. This systematic review sought to compile the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of the use of lumbar drains for intracranial pressure (ICP) control. A systematic review of the literature was performed with the search and data extraction performed by two reviewers independently in duplicate. Nine independent studies were identified, enrolling 230 patients, 159 with TBI. Efficacy for ICP control was observed across all studies, with immediate and sustained effect, reducing medical therapy requirements. Lumbar drainage with medical therapy appears effective when used alone and as an adjunct to ventricular drainage. Safety reporting varied in quality. Clinical or radiological incidents of cerebral herniation (with an unclear relationship to lumbar drainage) were observed in 14/230 patients resulting in one incident of morbidity without adverse patient outcome. The available data is generally poor in quality and volume, but supportive of the efficacy of lumbar drainage for ICP control. Few reports of adverse outcomes are suggestive of, but are insufficient to confirm, the safety of use in the appropriate patient and clinical setting. Further large prospective observational studies are required to generate sufficient support of an acceptable safety profile.
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.