ReviewNeurocritical care2014
Monitoring inflammation (including fever) in acute brain injury.
Review in Neurocritical care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebral Vasospasm After Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- A novel higher performance nomogram based on explainable machine learning for predicting mortality risk in stroke patients within 30 days based on clinical features on the first day ICU admission.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Anti-Inflammatory Drug Therapy in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Randomized and Placebo-Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and Neuroinflammation: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Review
- Causal Structure of Brain Physiology after Brain Injury from Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.PloS one · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inflammation is an important part of the normal physiologic response to acute brain injury (ABI). How inflammation is manifest determines if it augments or hinders the resolution of ABI. Monitoring body temperature, the cellular arm of the inflammatory cascade, and inflammatory proteins may help guide therapy. This summary will address the utility of inflammation monitoring in brain-injured adults. An electronic literature search was conducted for English language articles describing the testing, utility, and optimal methods to measure inflammation in ABI. Ninety-four articles were included in this review. Current evidence suggests that control of inflammation after ABI may hold promise for advances in good outcomes. However, our understanding of how much inflammation is good and how much is deleterious is not yet clear. Several important concepts emerge form our review. First, while continuous temperature monitoring of core body temperature is recommended, temperature pattern alone is not useful in distinguishing infectious from noninfectious fever. Second, when targeted temperature management is used, shivering should be monitored at least hourly. Finally, white blood cell levels and protein markers of inflammation may have a limited role in distinguishing infectious from noninfectious fever. Our understanding of optimal use of inflammation monitoring after ABI is limited currently but is an area of active investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.