ReviewBrain sciences2026
External Ventricular Drains and Infection Risk: Duration as the Dominant Predictor-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Brain sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesExternal ventricular drains (EVDs) are widely used in the management of intracranial hemorrhage and hydrocephalus; however, they carry a significant risk of device-related central nervous system infections, including ventriculitis and meningitis, which are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and prolonged intensive care stays. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether prolonged EVD duration (>10 days) is associated with an increased risk of ventriculostomy-related infection compared with shorter duration (≤10 days), and to explore the association with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak where data were available.
methodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from database inception through September 2025, including English-language clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies reporting infection outcomes related to EVD management factors. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsSixteen studies comprising approximately 5500 patients met the inclusion criteria. Shorter EVD duration (≤10 days) was associated with a significantly lower risk of infection (pooled OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.68;
conclusionsThese findings suggest that minimizing EVD duration may reduce infection risk and support early removal when clinically feasible. However, given the observational nature of the included studies, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is warranted to evaluate additional modifiable risk factors, including CSF leakage and sampling 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.