ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Active Cerebrospinal Fluid Exchange Versus External Ventricular Drainage in IVH and SAH: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraventricular hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage are associated with neuroinflammation and increased morbidity and mortality. Rapid clearance of blood from the cerebrospinal fluid space may mitigate neuroinflammatory cascades and improve clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of active cerebrospinal fluid exchange, including neuroendoscopic lavage and IRRAflow systems, versus external ventricular drainage in patients with intraventricular hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage.
methodsThe study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and thoroughly assessed databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science, up to September 18, 2025. Statistical analysis, both fixed-effect and random-effect model analyses, was performed by the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. In addition, the Cochran Q test was conducted to determine the statistical heterogeneity. In terms of low heterogeneity, the fixed-effect model is reported.
resultsThis review included 7 studies with a total sample size of 834. Our analysis showed that active cerebrospinal fluid exchange was associated with significantly higher hematoma clearance (odds ratio, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.22-6.08];
conclusionsActive cerebrospinal fluid exchange techniques demonstrated superior outcomes over external ventricular drainage in managing intraventricular hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage, particularly in clot resolution and neurological recovery. Large-scale trials are warranted.
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.