ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative efficacy of cisternal drainage versus external ventricular drainage in severe aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cerebrovascular emergency known as aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is potentially fatal. Although external ventricular drainage (EVD) is the gold standard for monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP), cisternal drainage (CD) should be considered as a supplementary strategy due to the limited effectiveness of EVD in removing inflammatory mediators and preventing vascular damage.
objectiveTo compare ICP monitoring accuracy, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) clearance, and clinical outcomes between EVD and CD in severe aSAH patients.
methodsA retrospective study enrolled 47 Hunt-Hess IV-V grade aSAH patients, divided into EVD (n = 23) and EVD + CD (n = 24) groups. Daily ICP values (days 1/3/5/7), CSF biomarkers (cell count, protein, Interleukin-6, Interleukin-8, Tumor Necrosis Factor-α, Endothelin-1, Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1, Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1), hospitalization duration, and 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) were analyzed.
resultsICP values showed no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). EVD + CD group exhibited higher CSF cell count (394.68 ± 91.32 vs. 320.40 ± 75.49), protein (16.17 ± 2.27 vs. 13.74 ± 2.94 g/L), and cytokines (IL-6/IL-8, p < 0.05) on day 1, but significantly lower levels by day 7 (p < 0.05). Vascular injury factors (ET-1/MCP-1/VCAM-1) were reduced in the EVD + CD group by day 7 (p < 0.05). Hospitalization duration was 22.8% shorter in the EVD + CD group (27 vs. 35 days, p = 0.030); while 6-month GOS showed no difference (2.52 vs. 2.57, p = 0.148).
conclusionCompared with EVD, CD could not only provide accurate ICP readings and trend data but also enhance inflammatory clearance, reduce hospitalization time, and mitigate vascular injury in severe aSAH, warranting further validation in larger cohorts.
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.