SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
A systematic review of reviews on ventriculostomy related infection definitions: A fundamental problem.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of initial disease severity and metabolic stress on mortality in patients with suspected external ventricular drain-associated infection.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Incidence, risk factors, and microbial spectrum of external ventricular drain-related infections among adult neurocritical care patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- Ventriculitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Clinical Features, Outcomes and Device Management Practices.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite being a common, well-recognized and important complication to External Ventricular Drainage (EVD), a consensus definition for Ventriculostomy Related Infections (VRI) has not yet been established. We conducted a review to qualitatively assess definition heterogeneity and objectivity among Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs); and investigated systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and reviews of the literature for definition citation accuracy and common methodological approaches and points of discussion related to VRI definitions. RCTs were grouped into arbitrarily chosen infection rate brackets to examine the hypothesized correlation between broader definitions and higher infection rates in RCTs. A literature search was conducted via Ovid in the Embase, MedLine and Cochrane databases from all years until the 8th of January 2025. Using Covidence, two authors (MH, AA) independently evaluated records, including studies that had ≥ 1 VRI definitions and numerical VRI rates. We identified 12 definitions in 13 RCTs, documenting pronounced disagreement. Cumulative rates for "definitive" VRI (8.4%) were lower than "suspected" VRI (13.5%). Qualitatively assessed, studies with narrow definitions presented lower VRI rates. All 17/17 meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and 15/19 literature reviews cited ≥ 1 definition inaccurately. Trial results may change based on definition choice. Definition heterogeneity was not sufficiently accounted for in meta-analyses. All literature-based studies were confounded by definition heterogeneity. Previously reported findings based on meta-analytical methodologies may be invalid, and inaccurately presented definitions could give a false impression of trial comparability. A consensus set of definitions are necessary to allow comparison between studies, and should be constructed to account for the intended use since sensitivity and specificity may have different weight depending on the context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40069523What 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.