Cureus | Newsroom


Presentation Documenting Use of IRRAflow System Confirms Potential Improved Outcomes Compared to Traditional Drainage Solutions

Sponsored by IRRAS Presentation of Largest Dataset to Date Documenting Use of IRRAflow System Confirms Potential Improved Outcomes Compared to Traditional Drainage Solutions The neurosurgery team from the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute at West Virginia University and WVU Medicine Ruby Memorial Hospital (WVUH), led by Dr. Nicholas Brandmeir, presented the clinical outcomes from the first 45 patients they treated with the new breakthrough technology, IRRAflow, a dynamic system that provides a therapeutic approach to treating intracranial bleeding. The data presented confirms the preliminary effectiveness of the IRRAflow system’s automated irrigation by showing a 0% occlusion rate during the entire course of treatment. On the other hand, clinical literature documents that traditional passive drainage solutions have catheter occlusion rates of up to 47%.1                                     Additionally, IRRAflow’s mechanism of action was also shown to more effectively remove collected blood after intracranial bleeding. The average treatment time with IRRAflow was 6.8 days, and only 13% of patients required the placement of a shunt after IRRAflow treatment. This percentage of shunt dependence with IRRAflow compares favorably to data from the CLEAR-III where 18% of patients required shunt placement after treatment with a passive ventricular drain.  Click the image above to view the PDF and learn about how preliminary data confirms that IRRAflow might reduce rates of catheter occlusion, infections, symptomatic and radiographic vasospasm.                                      1. Fargen KM, Hoh BL, Neal D, O’Connor T, Rivera-Zengotita M, Murad GJ. The burden and risk factors of ventriculostomy occlusion in a high-volume cerebrovascular practice: results of an ongoing prospective database. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2015:1-8.

Mar 29, 2022

The Cureus Journal of Medical Science Editorial Process and Mission Video

To ring in the new year, Cureus produced a new video to help educate authors about our publishing process, our mission, and the scrutiny each paper receives prior to publication.  Click the photo below to view the short animation and share it with your colleagues.                                                 The Cureus Journal of Medical Science believes in following the science, no matter who or where it comes from. The world of medical publishing is filled with elitist gatekeeping, but Cureus is committed to helping clinicians and researchers from all over the world publish their peer-reviewed work. All articles published in Cureus undergo timely and robust peer review as well as three distinct phases of editorial review.  Prior to peer review, article submissions are assessed for scientific errors, language, readability, formatting, conflicts of interest, and plagiarism. If too many language or formatting errors are identified, the authors must purchase our Preferred Editing service to proceed. Meanwhile, articles that fulfill our stated criteria in these areas are approved for peer review. Cureus invites a minimum of six reviewers with relevant domain experience and articles must receive at least two completed peer reviews containing critical feedback in order to move forward. Reviews that don’t measure up will be rejected and the review period will restart. Many articles receive more than two reviews, sometimes as many as five or six! Many of our articles complete peer review within just a few days. There’s a common misconception that peer review needs to take longer. Journals often masquerade behind a complex process where they claim ”great” peer-review occurs, but the reality is that the vast majority of articles can be reviewed over the course of a few hours. After revising the article based on the reviewer comments, the author will submit for final review by at least one Cureus associate editor, sometimes more. Our team of associate editors consists of physicians of all backgrounds who carefully scrutinize articles to ensure that 1) the peer reviews contain critical feedback, 2) the author has made the necessary revisions in response to peer review, and 3) that the science is credible. Articles containing dangerous or misleading science will be rejected, as will articles containing fraudulent data or findings. Cureus is not afraid to publish credible science that goes against the grain. After all, history is rife with examples of so-called experts being proven wrong and it’s important to remember that the general consensus is not always correct. Testing these assumptions forms the very bedrock of the scientific process and should be encouraged, not vilified. Cureus promises to always remain open-minded, transparent, inclusive and accessible, because that is what Open Access publishing is all about.

Jan 17, 2022