ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2025
Continuous Ventricular Irrigation for Intraventricular Hemorrhage.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDespite decades of research, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) remains a devastating condition with high morbidity and mortality. Traditional external ventricular drains (EVDs) have long served as the cornerstone of surgical management but are limited by various complications. This review evaluates recent literature on continuous ventricular irrigation as an alternative approach to treating IVH. RECENT
findingsEarly data surrounding continuous ventricular irrigation systems, including retrospective comparative studies and case series are encouraging. However, existing randomized data are limited by small sample size and methodological flaws. Larger, ongoing studies such as ACTIVE and ARCH aim to provide more definitive evidence. Continuous ventricular irrigation offers theoretical and practical advantages over static drainage in IVH patients, including enhanced clot clearance and improved catheter patency, particularly when combined with continuous thrombolytic therapy. Optimized protocols for irrigation rates, medication dosing, and timing are still being investigated. Robust clinical trials are necessary to validate the approach and establish best practices.
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.