Cerebrospinal fluid collection: a comparison of different collection sites on the external ventricular drain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure monitoring using an external ventricular drainage (EVD) system is the most commonly used technology to monitor intracranial pressure or drain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in neurological and neurosurgical patients. CSF samples are collected routinely from the EVD system for laboratory tests. No study has been conducted to identify where the most appropriate site for CSF collection is in order to reduce the disruption of the closed EVD system and reduce the risk of infection. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify a CSF sampling port in the EVD system that is easily accessible, provides accurate results, and minimizes disruption to the closed EVD system. SAMPLE: Fifty patients admitted to the neurological and neurosurgical intensive care step-down unit with the EVD system between July 2007 and September 2009 agreed to participate in the study. There were 21 women and 29 men. Forty-seven patients' data were analyzed. METHOD: The design was quasi-experimental using a convenience sample. Two samples of CSF were collected daily. One sample was collected from the proximal port and another sample was collected from the distal port. The second sample was collected immediately after the first. Each set of samples (proximal and distal) was tested and compared for any differences in appearance, culture results, and concentrations of protein, glucose, and white cell count. RESULTS: Using a two-tailed paired t test with 95% confidence interval, there was no statistically significant difference between the samples obtained from the two collection sites for protein, glucose, white cell count, appearance, and culture. Pearson's correlation coefficient was also used to analyze the correlation for the continuous measures. Both protein and glucose had very high correlations. However, the white cell count, and white cell counts and culture had very low correlations. CONCLUSION: The distal port of the EVD system is safe and easy for CSF collection. It also provides accurate results for CSF samples. When the CSF sample is collected from the distal port, the entire volume of CSF in the drip chamber should be collected and tested to obtain an accurate WBC count per unit of volume.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".