SynthesisNeurocritical care2025
Decompressive Craniectomy with or Without Dural Closure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Prospective Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Decompressive Craniectomy with Watertight Duraplasty and without Watertight Duraplasty in Traumatic Brain Injury.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decompressive craniectomy is used to alleviate intracranial pressure in cases of traumatic brain injury and stroke by removing part of the skull to allow brain expansion. Traditionally, this procedure is followed by a watertight dural suture, although evidence supporting this method is not strong. This meta-analysis examines the feasibility of the open-dura (OD) approach versus the traditional closed-dura (CD) technique with watertight suturing. A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis were conducted on OD and CD dural closure techniques. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant trials. The primary end point was the rate of complications, with specific analyses for infection and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks. Mortality, poor neurological outcomes, and operation duration were also assessed. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Following a comprehensive search, 930 studies were screened, from which four studies and a total of 368 patients were ultimately selected. The primary outcome analysis showed a reduced likelihood of complications in the OD group when compared with the CD group (368 patients, odds ratio 0.54 [95% CI 0.32-0.90]; I
Indexed as
Identifiers
39112817What 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.