SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
The impact of neuroendoscopic drainage in intraventricular hemorrhage: an updated meta-analysis.
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 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.
- Endoscopic Biopsy of Intra- and Paraventricular Brain Lesions: Practical Advantages and Clinical Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External ventricular drainage (EVD) is a mainstay for intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) treatment, improving ventricular clearance and reducing mortality but with suboptimal complications and morbidity. Meanwhile, several studies have shown that neuroendoscopic drainage (NED) provides superior results and is a promising therapy. Thus, we aimed to compare NED and EVD in patients with IVH. A systematic literature review was conducted using Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was shunt dependency. Secondary outcomes were infection, length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, mortality, and functional outcome. Inclusion criteria: studies comparing NED and EVD with predefined outcomes. Exclusion criteria: age < five years. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio 2024.04.1 + 748. Sensitivity analysis was performed with subgroup analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB-2. Of 234 potential articles, 17 met our criteria, involving 1043 patients, with 495 undergoing NED and 548 receiving only EVD. Patients who underwent NED had lower odds of shunt dependency (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.12,0.25; p < 0.001), infection (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.16,0.53; p < 0.001), and mortality at one month (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.20,0.96; p = 0.039) and six months (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16,0.58; p < 0.001), shorter hospital (MD -6.02; 95% CI -9.58,-2.45; p < 0.001) and ICU stay (MD -6.64; 95% CI -10.46,-2.83; p < 0.001), and better functional outcomes according to Glasgow Outcome Scale (MD -0.65; 95% CI -0.98,-0.32; p < 0.001) and modified Rankin Scale (MD -1.25; 95% CI -1.90,-0.60; p < 0.001) compared to patients who underwent EVD. To confirm the robustness of the results, we performed sensitivity analyses with subgroups of the RCT, which also showed significant superiority of NED over EVD. Our results suggest that NED has a positive impact on patients with IVH and may be a breakthrough intervention in this scenario.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167864What 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.