ArticleActa neurochirurgica1991
Prediction of secondary deterioration in comatose neurosurgical patients by serial recording of multimodality evoked potentials.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Medical decision making" for repeated computed tomography in neurosurgical intensive care patients.Neurosurgical review · 1994Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 75 comatose neurosurgical patients suffering from various types of intracranial lesions, multimodality evoked potentials (auditory, somatosensory, visual) were serially recorded at short intervals in order to evaluate their usefulness for early detection of secondary deterioration in the clinical course. The best parameter for prediction of secondary deterioration (as estimated by pupillary status) was a diminution in amplitude or disappearance of the primary cortical SEP peak. Considering these parameters, sensitivity of the prediction of pupillary behaviour was 71%, specificity 84%. Additional consideration of SEP latencies or BAEP or VEP parameters did not further increase the efficacy of prediction. In cases of correct positive prediction, deterioration of SEP occurred 4 to 144 hours before the deterioration of pupillary physiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
1950693What 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.