ArticleTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Cerebrospinal fluid shunting for the management of cryptococcal meningitis: a scoping review.
Article in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Pathogenicity and virulence of Cryptococcus neoformans from an environmental perspective.Virulence · 2025Review
- Long-term outcomes of ventriculoperitoneal shunt in HIV-negative Cryptococcal meningitis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Chronic meningitis: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- A rare case of cryptococcal meningitis with infarction of the splenium of the corpus callosum in an immunocompetent patient: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review aimed to describe studies that evaluate the management of cryptococcal meningitis (CM) using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunts, types of shunts used, and clinically relevant patient outcomes. Methods: We searched in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science/Core collection, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov on 1 April 2022. We included two-arm and one-arm cohort studies that evaluated clinically relevant patient outcomes. Case reports were used to describe the type of CSF shunts used and the rationale behind its selection. The selection and extraction processes were independently performed by two authors. Results: This study included 20 cohort studies and 26 case reports. Only seven cohort studies compared two groups. Ventriculoperitoneal shunt was the most commonly used type of shunt (82.1%). The main indications for placing a shunt were persistently high opening pressure (57.1%) and persisting neurological symptoms or deterioration (54.3%). Cohort studies suggest that patients with shunt showed improvement in some outcomes such as neurological symptoms and hospital stay length. The most common shunt complications were post-operative fever (1-35.6%) and shunt obstruction (7-16%). Conclusion: CSF shunts may improve some clinically relevant outcomes in patients with CM, but the evidence is very uncertain.
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.