Active Versus Passive Drainage Systems for Subdural Hematomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) management involves various surgical techniques, with drainage systems playing a pivotal role. While passive drainage (PD) and active drainage (AD) are both used, their efficacy remains contentious. Some studies favor PD for lower recurrence rates, while others suggest AD superiority. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to address this controversy, aiming to provide clarity on optimal drainage modalities post-CSDH evacuation. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing active vs PD for subdural hematomas. Data extraction involved independent researchers, and statistical analysis was conducted using R software. The assessment of risk of bias was performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions framework and the Risk Of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, involving 1949 patients with AD and 1346 with PD, no significant differences were observed in recurrence rates between the active (13.6%) and passive (16.4%) drainage groups (risk ratio [RR] = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.58-1.31). Similarly, for complications, infection, hemorrhage, and mortality, no significant disparities were found between the 2 drainage modalities. Complication rates were 7.5% for active and 12.6% for PD (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.36-1.52). Infection rates were available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 2% and 2.6%, respectively (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.24-4.01). Hemorrhage rates were also available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 1.1% and 2.2%, respectively (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.11-1.81). Mortality rates were 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.61-1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study found no significant difference between passive and AD for managing complications, recurrence, infection, hemorrhage, or mortality in CSDH cases. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed for clarity.

Brain tissue oxygen plus intracranial pressure monitoring versus isolated intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with traumatic brain injury: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring plays a key role in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), however, cerebral hypoxia can occur without intracranial hypertension. Aiming to improve neuroprotection in these patients, a possible alternative is the association of Brain Tissue Oxygen Pressure (PbtO2) monitoring, used to detect PbtO2 tension. METHOD: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central for RCTs comparing combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring with ICP monitoring alone in patients with severe or moderate TBI. The outcomes analyzed were mortality at 6 months, favorable outcome (GOS ≥ 4 or GOSE ≥ 5) at 6 months, pulmonary events, cardiovascular events and sepsis rate. RESULTS: We included 4 RCTs in the analysis, totaling 505 patients. Combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring was used in 241 (47.72%) patients. There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to favorable outcome at 6 months (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.95-1.43; p = 0.134; I2 = 0%), mortality at 6 months (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.57-1.18; p = 0.281; I2 = 34%), cardiovascular events (RR 1.75; 95% CI 0.86-3.52; p = 0.120; I2 = 0%) or sepsis (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.25-2.22; p = 0.604; I2 = 0%). The risk of pulmonary events was significantly higher in the group with combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.11-1.87; p = 0.006; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring does not change outcomes such as mortality, functional recovery, cardiovascular events or sepsis. Furthermore, we found a higher risk of pulmonary events in patients undergoing combined monitoring.

EVALUATION OF OUTCOMES IN INTERVENTION RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS - DISTAL RADIUS FRACTURES.

Objectives: Describe the frequency and types of outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of intervention for distal radius fractures, analyze how confusing outcome presentations can lead to misinterpretations, and suggest strategies to improve the reader's understanding of the decision-making process. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted through a systematized search on the PubMed® database in the last 10 years, in which only intervention RCT was included for distal radius fractures, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Of the primary outcomes analyzed in the 75 selected articles, 46.6% were classified as clinical outcomes, 20% as surrogate, 30.6% as composite, 1.3% as complex scales, and 1.3% as safety outcomes. 34.7% of the articles did not report adverse events. Conclusion: The presentation of outcomes with little clinical relevance represented more than half of the sample (53.4%) - such studies can harm the reader since they confuse the interpretation of scientific evidence; the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative could help health professionals in understanding and selecting the most appropriate therapeutic interventions for patients. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study .

Objetivos: Descrever a frequência e os tipos de desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados (RCT) de intervenção para fraturas distais do rádio, analisar como apresentações confusas de desfechos podem levar a interpretações equivocadas e sugerir estratégias para melhorar a compreensão do leitor sobre o processo de tomada de decisão. Métodos: Foi realizado estudo retrospectivo mediante busca sistematizada na base de dados PubMed® nos últimos 10 anos, na qual foram incluídos apenas RCT de intervenção para fraturas do segmento distal do rádio, cujos desfechos foram analisados. Resultados: Dos desfechos primários analisados nos 75 artigos selecionados, 46,6% foram classificados como desfechos clínicos, 20% como substitutos, 30,6% como compostos, 1,3% como escalas complexas e em 1,3% como desfechos de segurança. 34,7% dos artigos não reportaram eventos adversos. Conclusão: A apresentação de desfechos com pouca relevância clínica representou mais da metade da amostra (53,4%) - tais estudos podem prejudicar o leitor, uma vez que confundem a interpretação das evidências científicas; a iniciativa Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) auxilia os profissionais de saúde na compreensão e seleção das intervenções terapêuticas mais adequadas para os pacientes. Nível de Evidência III; Estudo retrospectivo comparativo .

Evaluation of outcomes in intervention randomized clinical trials - distal radius fractures / Avaliação dos desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados de intervenção - fraturas distais do rádio

ABSTRACT Objectives: Describe the frequency and types of outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of intervention for distal radius fractures, analyze how confusing outcome presentations can lead to misinterpretations, and suggest strategies to improve the reader's understanding of the decision-making process. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted through a systematized search on the PubMed® database in the last 10 years, in which only intervention RCT was included for distal radius fractures, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Of the primary outcomes analyzed in the 75 selected articles, 46.6% were classified as clinical outcomes, 20% as surrogate, 30.6% as composite, 1.3% as complex scales, and 1.3% as safety outcomes. 34.7% of the articles did not report adverse events. Conclusion: The presentation of outcomes with little clinical relevance represented more than half of the sample (53.4%) - such studies can harm the reader since they confuse the interpretation of scientific evidence; the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative could help health professionals in understanding and selecting the most appropriate therapeutic interventions for patients. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study .

RESUMO Objetivos: Descrever a frequência e os tipos de desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados (RCT) de intervenção para fraturas distais do rádio, analisar como apresentações confusas de desfechos podem levar a interpretações equivocadas e sugerir estratégias para melhorar a compreensão do leitor sobre o processo de tomada de decisão. Métodos: Foi realizado estudo retrospectivo mediante busca sistematizada na base de dados PubMed® nos últimos 10 anos, na qual foram incluídos apenas RCT de intervenção para fraturas do segmento distal do rádio, cujos desfechos foram analisados. Resultados: Dos desfechos primários analisados nos 75 artigos selecionados, 46,6% foram classificados como desfechos clínicos, 20% como substitutos, 30,6% como compostos, 1,3% como escalas complexas e em 1,3% como desfechos de segurança. 34,7% dos artigos não reportaram eventos adversos. Conclusão: A apresentação de desfechos com pouca relevância clínica representou mais da metade da amostra (53,4%) - tais estudos podem prejudicar o leitor, uma vez que confundem a interpretação das evidências científicas; a iniciativa Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) auxilia os profissionais de saúde na compreensão e seleção das intervenções terapêuticas mais adequadas para os pacientes. Nível de Evidência III; Estudo retrospectivo comparativo .