SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical interventions for communicating hydrocephalus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Surgical intervention is the standard treatment for communicating hydrocephalus (CH), a condition involving cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) accumulation in the ventricles without a blockage. The optimal surgical approach for CH remains uncertain, with clinical decisions varying by patient characteristics and institutional practices. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of surgical interventions for CH. Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Vip, China Biomedical Literature, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) from inception to September 24, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were efficacy (favorable outcome) and safety (complications). Secondary outcomes included revision, infection, seizures, operation time (minutes), and duration of hospitalization (days). Bayesian NMAs synthesized the data, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. Surface under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) values were generated to rank the treatments. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024585931). Results: Of 4,159 citations identified by our search, 34 trials (2,528 participants) met the inclusion criteria. For efficacy, lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) [risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.13-1.23; high certainty] and LPS with laparoscope (LPS + LS) (RR 1.27, 95% CrI 1.18-1.39; high certainty) were more effective than ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS). Both LPS and LPS + LS outperformed endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ETV with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV + CPC) (RR range 1.16-1.48; high to moderate certainty). For safety, LPS, LPS + LS, and ETV had fewer complications than VPS (RR range 0.20-0.40; high certainty). LPS + LS had fewer complications than LPS (RR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.29-0.79; moderate certainty). Compared with cranial approaches, lumbar surgeries improved favorable outcomes [RR 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-1.28; moderate certainty], and reduced complications (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.43; moderate certainty). Conclusion: LPS and LPS + LS appeared to be the most efficacious surgical interventions for treating CH, with fewer complications than VPS and ETV + CPC, indicating the potential advantages of lumbar approaches. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024585931, CRD42024585931.
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.