Corrigendum to "Infection-related failure of autologous versus allogenic cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy - A systematic review and meta-analysis" [Brain Spine 3 (2023) 101760].

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Infection rates following custom-made cranioplasty using heterologous materials: insights from a systematic review on 3260 patients with a focus on follow-up length.Neurosurgical review · 2025
   Pooled it

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Infection-related failure of autologous2023

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract