Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23234472›Full record

Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2012

A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury.

Randall M Chesnut, Nancy Temkin, Nancy Carney, Sureyya Dikmen, Carlos Rondina, Walter Videtta, Gustavo Petroni, Silvia Lujan, Jim Pridgeon, Jason Barber and 6 more

Erratum issued 3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 473 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
473citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
60.2field-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.

NCT01068522 phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Traumatic Brain Injury in Latin America: Lifespan Analysis

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WashingtonRan2007 to 2013Enrolled324ConditionsTraumatic Brain Injury, Brain InjuriesArmsParenchymal Intracranial pressure monitor, Treatment based on clinical and imaging observations
NCT03000283 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Conivaptan for the Reduction of Cerebral Edema in Intracerebral Hemorrhage- A Safety and Tolerability Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorJesse CorryRan2017 to 2019Enrolled7ConditionsCerebral Hemorrhage, Cerebral Edema, Intracerebral Hemorrhage, StrokeArmsConivaptan
NCT05593380 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Invasive Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Guided Management on the Functional Outcomes of Patients With Supratentorial Large Volume Cerebral Hemorrhage: An Open Label, Randomized, Controlled, Multi-center Trial (BIATICH)

TypeinterventionalSponsorXiangya Hospital of Central South UniversityRan2022 to 2025Enrolled193ConditionsCerebral Hemorrhage, Hypertensive, Intracranial Hypertension, Monitoring, Critical CareArmsParenchymal Intracranial pressure monitor, Treatment based on clinical and imaging observations
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

473 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,307 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impacts of intracranial pressure monitoring on mortality and length of stay in severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. What Do We Do When the ICP Goes Up?Neurocritical care · 2026
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Randall M ChesnutDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. chesnutr@uw.edu
Nancy Temkin
Nancy Carney
Sureyya Dikmen
Carlos Rondina
Walter Videtta
Gustavo Petroni
Silvia Lujan
Jim Pridgeon
Jason Barber
Joan Machamer
Kelley Chaddock
Juanita M Celix
Marianna Cherner
Terence Hendrix
Global Neurotrauma Research Group
University of Washington · USHospital de Emergencias Dr. Clemente Álvarez · ARUniversity of California, San Diego · USHarborview Medical Center · USHospital Posadas · ARInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biostatistics · CH

Funding

Managing severe TBI without ICP monitoring - guidelines development and testingR01NS080648 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CHESNUT, RANDALL M, LUJAN, SILVIA B · 2012 to 2018
$3.8M
Traumatic Brain Injury in Latin America: Lifespan AnalysisR01NS058302 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CHESNUT, RANDALL M · 2007 to 2011
$3.2M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS058302NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS080648PHS HHS R0INS058302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntracranial-pressure monitoring is considered the standard of care for severe traumatic brain injury and is used frequently, but the efficacy of treatment based on monitoring in improving the outcome has not been rigorously assessed.

methodsWe conducted a multicenter, controlled trial in which 324 patients 13 years of age or older who had severe traumatic brain injury and were being treated in intensive care units (ICUs) in Bolivia or Ecuador were randomly assigned to one of two specific protocols: guidelines-based management in which a protocol for monitoring intraparenchymal intracranial pressure was used (pressure-monitoring group) or a protocol in which treatment was based on imaging and clinical examination (imaging-clinical examination group). The primary outcome was a composite of survival time, impaired consciousness, and functional status at 3 months and 6 months and neuropsychological status at 6 months; neuropsychological status was assessed by an examiner who was unaware of protocol assignment. This composite measure was based on performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status and calculated as a percentile (with 0 indicating the worst performance, and 100 the best performance).

resultsThere was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, a composite measure based on percentile performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status (score, 56 in the pressure-monitoring group vs. 53 in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.49). Six-month mortality was 39% in the pressure-monitoring group and 41% in the imaging-clinical examination group (P=0.60). The median length of stay in the ICU was similar in the two groups (12 days in the pressure-monitoring group and 9 days in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.25), although the number of days of brain-specific treatments (e.g., administration of hyperosmolar fluids and the use of hyperventilation) in the ICU was higher in the imaging-clinical examination group than in the pressure-monitoring group (4.8 vs. 3.4, P=0.002). The distribution of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.

conclusionsFor patients with severe traumatic brain injury, care focused on maintaining monitored intracranial pressure at 20 mm Hg or less was not shown to be superior to care based on imaging and clinical examination. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01068522.).

Indexed as

Intracranial PressureMonitoring, PhysiologicNeurologic ExaminationAdultBrainBrain InjuriesFemaleHumansIntracranial HypertensionKaplan-Meier EstimateLength of StayMaleSurvival RateTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23234472
PMCPMC3565432
OpenAlexW2111466276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.