SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026
Routine versus clinically indicated cerebrospinal fluid sampling for infection in external ventricular drains: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal ventricular drains (EVDs) are commonly used in neurosurgery but carry a risk of ventriculostomy-related infection. Routine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling is commonly performed for surveillance, although its clinical value and potential risks are still uncertain.
methodsA systematic review was performed following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed was searched from inception to identify studies assessing CSF sampling strategies and/or clinical and laboratory screening for infection in patients with EVDs. Eligible studies included retrospective and prospective cohorts, case-control, and case series reporting infection-related outcomes. Data were extracted and categorized by causal relevance. Due to heterogeneity in studies, findings were summarized descriptively.
resultsFourteen studies were included, covering various study designs and sampling methods. Only 2 studies directly compared routine versus clinically indicated CSF sampling and found no benefit of routine daily sampling for detecting or reducing infections. Most studies were noncomparative and demonstrated the limited predictive value of routine clinical and laboratory parameters. Indirect evidence suggested that catheter duration, system manipulation, and patient-related factors were more strongly associated with infection risk than sampling frequency. Infection rates across studies ranged from 4.1% to 16.3%, with considerable variation in definitions and methodologies.
conclusionRoutine CSF sampling is not supported by high-quality evidence as a strategy to improve detection or prevent EVD-related infections. A selective, clinically guided approach may be more appropriate, with emphasis on reducing catheter manipulation and optimizing overall catheter management. Further prospective studies with standardized protocols are necessary to clarify the role of CSF sampling strategies.
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.