SynthesisJournal of neurology2025
Effects of cerebrospinal fluid drainage on patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) has been reported to be beneficial in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), but there are controversial results among different studies. Moreover, the complications associated with CSFD have received widespread attention. In this study, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with the aim of evaluating the relationships between CSFD and outcomes in aSAH patients.
methodsA systematic search was carried out for eligible English publications up to 1 July 2025 in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The primary outcomes were a good prognosis and death, and the secondary outcomes included hydrocephalus, cerebral vasospasm (CVS), delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), and intracranial infection (II). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 3442 patients from 20 studies were included in the meta-analysis; 2258 patients received CSFD, and 1184 patients did not undergo drainage. Pooled analysis revealed that CSFD improved the prognosis (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.15-2.61; P < 0.01) and reduced mortality (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.38-0.76; P < 0.01). Meta-analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that patients who received CSFD had a lower incidence of CVS (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37-0.73; P < 0.01) and DCI (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.81; P < 0.01) than those who did not receive drainage, but CSFD did not reduce the incidence of hydrocephalus. CSFD increased the risk of II (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.24-4.29; P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that the results of different study methods and different drainage methods all showed that CSFD reduces the incidence of CVS but has no effect on the occurrence of hydrocephalus. However, for primary outcomes and other secondary outcomes, the results were inconsistent across subgroups.
conclusionsThe current data show that CSFD tends to improve prognosis and reduce the incidence of cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia. However, it may increase the risk of II and has no effect on the occurrence of hydrocephalus. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.
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.