ArticleSpringerPlus2015
Comparison of parenchymal and ventricular intracranial pressure readings utilizing a novel multi-parameter intracranial access system.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracranial Hypertension After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence and Mortality Rate.Neurocritical care · 2019Pooled it
- Cerebral Autoregulation in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Source of Index, Timing, and Relationship to Spreading Depolarization.Journal of neurotrauma · 2026Article
- Deriving Automated Device Metadata From Intracranial Pressure Waveforms: A Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury ICU Physiology Cohort Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2024Article
- Relationship between the shape of intracranial pressure pulse waveform and computed tomography characteristics in patients after traumatic brain injury.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Automatic identification of intracranial pressure waveform during external ventricular drainage clamping: segmentation via wavelet analysis.Physiological measurement · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive Intracranial Pressure Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Multimodal monitoring: practical recommendations (dos and don'ts) in challenging situations and uncertainty.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Ten Rules for the Management of Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury During Pregnancy: An Expert Viewpoint.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- The Evolution of the Role of External Ventricular Drainage in Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Differentiate the Source and Site of Intracranial Pressure Measurements Using More Precise Nomenclature.Neurocritical care · 2019Review
- Intracranial pressure monitoring in normal dogs using subdural and intraparenchymal miniature strain-gauge transducers.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBoth ventricular and parenchymal devices are available for measurement of intracranial pressure (ICP). The Hummingbird(®) Synergy Ventricular System is a novel device allowing multi-parametric neurological monitoring, including both ventricular and parenchymal ICP. The purpose of this study is to compare the congruence of the device's ventricular and parenchymal ICP readings.
methodsThis single-center, quantitative, interventional study compared parenchymal and ventricular ICP readings from 35 patients with the Hummingbird(®) System. If a difference of > ± 3 mmHg existed between an individual patient's parenchymal and ventricular values, progressive intervention strategies were applied to correct identified issues.
resultsFrom a total of 2,259 observations, statistical analysis revealed congruence (within ±0-3 mmHg) of 93% of readings comparing parenchymal and ventricular ICP. Of the observations requiring intervention, 58% involved the parenchymal component, 30% involved the ventricular component, and 12% involved both components. Following prescribed interventions, 98% of readings became congruent (within ±0-3 mmHg). The adjusted mean difference between the two methods was -0.95 (95% CI: -0.97,-0.93) mmHg and all mean ICP readings fell between -2 and 2 mmHg.
conclusionThe Hummingbird(®) Synergy Ventricular System demonstrates congruence between ventricular and parenchymal ICP measurements within accepted parameters. Interventions required to realign parenchymal and ventricular readings serve as reminders to clinicians to be vigilant with catheter/cable connections and to maintain appropriate positioning of the ventricular drainage system. The results of this study support the recommendation to use the parenchymal ICP component for routine ICP monitoring, allowing dedication of the ventricular catheter to drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
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.