Drain vs No drain: Recurrence with 2 burr holes (subgroup)
Drains may leads to lower recurrence with 2 burr holes (subgroup) compared with no drains (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Drains vs no drains Recurrence with 2 burr holes (subgroup) · adults with burr‐hole evacuation of CSDH Drains may leads to lower recurrence with 2 burr holes (subgroup) compared with no drains (low certainty). External drains versus no drains after burr‐hole evacuation for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.46 [0.26, 0.8] | 3 studies · 306 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| External drains versus no drains after burr‐hole evacuation for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.