Neuroendoscopic Surgery versus External Ventricular Drainage Alone or with Intraventricular Fibrinolysis for Intraventricular Hemorrhage Secondary to Spontaneous Supratentorial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although neuroendoscopy (NE) has been applied to many cerebral diseases, the effect of NE for intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) secondary to spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of NE compared with external ventricular drainage (EVD) alone or with intraventricular fibrinolysis (IVF) on the management of IVH secondary to spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage. METHODOLOGY/ PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wan Fang database) was performed to identify related studies published from 1970 to 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (OS) comparing NE with EVD alone or with IVF for the treatment of IVH were included. The quality of the included trials was assessed by Jaded scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RevMan 5.1 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven trials (5 RCTs and 6 ORs) involving 680 patients were included. The odds ratio (OR) showed a statistically significant difference between the NE + EVD and EVD + IVF groups in terms of mortality (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P=0.0004), effective hematoma evacuation rate (OR, 25.50, 95%CI; 14.30, 45.45; P<0.00001), good functional outcome (GFO) (OR, 4.51; (95%CI, 2.81-7.72; P<0.00001), and the ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) shunt dependence rate (OR, 0.16; 95%CI; 0.06, 0.40; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Applying neuroendoscopic approach with EVD may be a better management for IVH secondary to spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage than NE + IVF. However, there is still no conclusive evidence regarding the preference of NE vs. EVD alone in the case of IVH, because insufficient data has been published thus far. This study suggests that the NE approach with EVD could become an alternative to EVD + IVF for IVH in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".