Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16437469›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of refractory high intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury.

J Sahuquillo, F Arikan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

111 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 407 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Greenstick fracture-hinge decompressive craniotomy in infants: illustrative case and literature review of techniques for decompressive craniotomy without bone removal.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
    Review

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J SahuquilloVall d'Hebron University Hospital, Neurosurgery, Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119 - 129, Barcelona, Spain, 08035. sahuquillo@neurotrauma.com
F Arikan
Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). High ICP is treated by general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation etc) and a set of first line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol etc). When these measures fail to control high ICP, second line therapies are started. Among these, second line therapies such as barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (known as decompressive craniectomy) are used.

objectivesTo assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcome and quality of life in patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Trial Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Best Evidence, Clinical Practice Guidelines, PubMed, CINAHL, the National Research Register and Google Scholar. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and contacted experts in the field and the authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with a severe TBI who underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently examined the electronic search results for reports of possibly relevant trials and for retrieval in full. One author applied the selection criteria, performed the data extraction and assessed methodological quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsWe found one trial with 27 participants conducted in the pediatric population (>18 years). DC was associated with a risk ratio (RR) for death of 0.54 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.72), and RR of 0.54 for death, vegetative status or severe disability 6 to 12 months after injury (95% CI 0.29 to 1.07). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no evidence to support the routine use of secondary DC to reduce unfavourable outcome in adults with severe TBI and refractory high ICP. In the pediatric population DC reduces the risk of death and unfavourable outcome. Despite the wide confidence intervals for death and the small sample size of the only study identified, this treatment maybe justified in patients below the age of 18 when maximal medical treatment has failed to control ICP. To date, there are no results from randomised trials to confirm or refute the effectiveness of DC in adults. However, the results of non-randomized trials and controlled trials with historical controls involving adults, suggest that DC may be a useful option when maximal medical treatment has failed to control ICP. There are two ongoing randomized controlled trials of DC (Rescue ICP and DECRAN) that may allow further conclusions on the efficacy of this procedure in adults.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesCraniotomyDecompression, SurgicalHumansIntracranial HypertensionIntracranial PressureRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16437469
OpenAlexW1633986959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.