ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
CSF diversion after aneurysmal sub-arachnoid hemorrhage: towards personalized treatment strategies.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a life-threatening condition associated with high morbidity and mortality, with survivors often experiencing long-term neurological and functional deficits. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion plays a pivotal role in the acute management of aSAH, both for the treatment of hydrocephalus and for the prevention of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) through clearance of blood breakdown products. Four principal modalities are currently employed: lumbar puncture, lumbar, cisternal, and external ventricular drain. Each technique differs in its mechanism of drainage, monitoring capacity, complication profile, and influence on shunt dependency and long-term outcome. High-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials now supports lumbar drainage as the only intervention that significantly reduces the incidence of DCI and has been shown to improve functional outcomes, making it the preferred first-line approach in suitable patients. External ventricular drains remain indispensable in cases of obstructive hydrocephalus or reduced consciousness, while lumbar puncture may be considered in carefully selected low-risk patients. Cisternal drains represent a potential adjunct in those undergoing surgical clipping of the aneurysm. In patients without hydrocephalus, lumbar drains remain the only strategy with demonstrated long-term benefit. Given the heterogeneity of aSAH presentations and the limitations of existing evidence, individualized selection of CSF diversion techniques is warranted. We propose a pragmatic decision-making algorithm to optimize patient outcomes while minimizing iatrogenic complications, which can be adapted to institutional practices and further refined through prospective evaluation.
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.