SynthesisNeurocritical care2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of External Ventricular Drains and Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitors for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the management of traumatic brain injury (TBI), intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPm) is crucial for the timely management of severe cases that show rapid neurological deterioration. External ventricular drains (EVDs) and intraparenchymal pressure monitors (IPMs) are the primary methods used in this setting; however, the debate over their comparative efficacy persists, primarily because of reliance on observational study data. This underscores the need for a meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making. This study-level meta-analysis aims to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of EVDs versus IPMs in the management of TBI. A database search was conducted until February 13, 2024, to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients with TBI who underwent ICPm with either EVD or IPM. Primary outcomes included mortality, ICPm duration, length of stay, and complications. From an initial pool of 537 articles, eight studies (six retrospective cohort studies and two prospective cohort studies), encompassing 7080 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Mortality rates showed no significant difference between groups (risk ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.42], p = 0.42). Patients monitored with IPM had shorter intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference 0.90 [95% CI 0.21 to 1.59], p = 0.01) and ICPm duration (mean difference 0.79 [95% CI 0.33 to 1.24], p = 0.0007), with a higher risk of requiring surgical decompression. Monitoring-related complications were similar across the two groups. Our findings suggest that EVD and IPM provide similar outcomes in terms of mortality. However, IPM may offer significant advantages in reducing the duration of ICPm and intensive care unit length of stay. EVD may be preferable for certain mid-term to long-term monitoring. The predominance of observational studies in the current literature highlights the need for further clinical trials to compare these interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39358503What 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.