Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27315250›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2016

The Utility of Cerebral Blood Flow Assessment in TBI.

Omar S Akbik, Andrew P Carlson, Mark Krasberg, Howard Yonas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Omar S AkbikDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico, MSC10-5615, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA. osakbik@salud.unm.edu.
Andrew P CarlsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico, MSC10-5615, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA.
Mark KrasbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico, MSC10-5615, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA.
Howard YonasDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico, MSC10-5615, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few decades, intracranial monitoring technologies focused on treating and preempting secondary injury after traumatic brain injury (TBI) have experienced considerable growth. A physiological measure fundamental to the management of these patients is cerebral blood flow (CBF), which may be determined directly or indirectly. Direct measurement has proven difficult previously; however, invasive and non-invasive CBF monitors are now available. This article reviews the history of CBF measurements in TBI as well as the role of CBF in pathologies associated with TBI, such as cerebral autoregulation, hyperemia, and cortical spreading depression. The limitations of various CBF monitors are reviewed in order to better understand their role in TBI management.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular CirculationAnimalsBrain Injuries, TraumaticHomeostasisHumansHyperemiaIntracranial PressureCerebral autoregulationCerebral blood flowCortical spreading depressionHyperemiaIntracranial monitoringTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID27315250

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.