ReviewSurgical neurology international2024
Which is better in the management of chronic subdural hematoma: Irrigation, or no irrigation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2024. 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
Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a prevalent neurological disorder, especially among the elderly, where blood accumulates between the brain and its outer covering. The primary treatment for CSDH involves surgical intervention, such as burr-hole craniotomy, with or without irrigation of the subdural space. The efficacy of irrigation versus no irrigation in reducing recurrence, mortality, and postoperative complications remains debated. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of irrigation versus no irrigation in the surgical management of CSDH through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, targeting RCTs published in English comparing irrigation with no irrigation in CSDH management. Four RCTs with a total of 843 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted data independently, and the risk of bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment. The primary outcome was recurrence; secondary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. Results: The meta-analysis included four RCTs with 843 patients, revealing that irrigation significantly reduces the recurrence of CSDH compared to no irrigation (odds ratios [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.98, Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that irrigation during burr-hole drainage significantly reduces CSDH recurrence without increasing mortality or postoperative complications, supporting its use in clinical practice. Further, high-quality RCTs are necessary to confirm these findings and assess long-term outcomes.
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.