ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage versus lumbar puncture effectiveness in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Association of Impaired Hematoma Clearance After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage with Delayed Cerebral Ischemia, Hydrocephalus, and Long-Term Outcomes.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Transcriptomic profiling for identifying differentially expressed genes in aneurysm.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- CSF diversion after aneurysmal sub-arachnoid hemorrhage: towards personalized treatment strategies.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) from ruptured intracranial aneurysms causes significant morbidity and mortality. Although prophylactic lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) management is widely used, the relative benefits of continuous lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage compared to intermittent lumbar puncture remain undefined. This study compared clinical outcomes between these two approaches in patients with aneurysmal SAH. This single-center retrospective study included 222 patients with aneurysmal SAH treated between January 2023 and December 2023. Patients were assigned to continuous lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage (n = 103) or intermittent lumbar puncture (n = 119). The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 6 months, categorized as good (0-2) or poor (3-6). Secondary outcomes included secondary infarcts, intracranial infections, hydrocephalus, and mortality. At 6 months, the lumbar drainage group exhibited significantly better outcomes (79% vs. 58%, relative risk [RR] 1.36, 95% CI [0.70, 0.85], p = 0.002) and lower rates of intracranial infection (0% vs. 11%, p = 0.002) and hydrocephalus (6.8% vs. 23.5%, RR 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.13], p = 0.001) compared to the lumbar puncture group. Secondary infarcts occurred in 17.4% of the lumbar drainage group versus 28% of the lumbar puncture group (RR 0.63, 95% CI [0.11, 0.26], p = 0.099). No significant difference in mortality was observed between the groups (5.8% vs. 7.5%, RR 0.79, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.79], p = 0.608). Continuous lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage was associated with improved clinical outcomes, fewer intracranial infections, and reduced hydrocephalus incidence compared to intermittent lumbar puncture in patients with aneurysmal SAH. These findings advocate for the early adoption of continuous lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage in clinical practice.
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.