ArticleIntensive care medicine2005
A prospective study of outcome predictors after severe brain injury in children.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value of somatosensory evoked potentials in comatose children: a systematic literature review.Intensive care medicine · 2010Pooled it
- Neuromonitoring after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest: Cerebral Physiology and Injury Stratification.Neurocritical care · 2024Review
- Multimodal Neurologic Monitoring in Children With Acute Brain Injury.Pediatric neurology · 2022Review
- Neurological Prognostication in Children After Cardiac Arrest.Pediatric neurology · 2020Review
- Cardiac Arrest in Children: Relation to Resuscitation and Outcome.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2015Article
- Brain resuscitation in the drowning victim.Neurocritical care · 2012Review
- Advanced neuromonitoring and imaging in pediatric traumatic brain injury.Critical care research and practice · 2012Article
- Outcome prediction by motor and pupillary responses in children treated with therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2012Article
- Trajectory analysis of serum biomarker concentrations facilitates outcome prediction after pediatric traumatic and hypoxemic brain injury.Developmental neuroscience · 2010Article
- Cognitive event-related potentials in comatose and post-comatose states.Neurocritical care · 2008Article
- Year in review in intensive care medicine, 2005. III. Nutrition, pediatric and neonatal critical care, and experimental.Intensive care medicine · 2006Review
- Controversies in the care of children with acute brain injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo directly compare the predictive powers of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) to those of motor and pupillary responses. DESIGN AND
settingProspective clinical study in a paediatric intensive care unit. PATIENTS AND
participants102 severely brain-injured children less than 15 years of age. MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsSEPs and motor and pupillary responses were serially recorded during the first 9 days after admission. Initial, last and those tests performed on or after day 2 were analysed. Outcome was assessed 5 years after injury. SEPs had equal or superior predictive statistics and ROC curves compared to the other tests with few exceptions. Pupillary responses had higher sensitivity for favourable outcome prediction while for unfavourable outcome prediction the last motor responses had higher sensitivity, and the last pupillary responses had slightly higher specificity. Combining SEPs and motor responses provided the best combination for predicting unfavourable outcome.
conclusionsSEPs are the best overall predictor of outcome while motor and pupillary responses have advantages in some specific areas. The routine use of SEPs should be considered in the prediction of outcome of severely brain-injured patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15864546What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.