Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28808901›Full record

SynthesisNeurocritical care2018

The Utility of Routine Intensive Care Admission for Patients Undergoing Intracranial Neurosurgical Procedures: A Systematic Review.

Cesar Cimonari de Almeida, M Dustin Boone, Yosef Laviv, Burkhard S Kasper, Clark C Chen, Ekkehard M Kasper

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurocritical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Intensive care unit admission criteria: a scoping review.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Cesar Cimonari de AlmeidaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Lowry Medical Building 3B, 02215, Boston, MA, USA.
M Dustin BooneDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. mboone@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Yosef LavivDepartment of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Lowry Medical Building 3B, 02215, Boston, MA, USA.
Burkhard S KasperDepartment of Neurology, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Clark C ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Ekkehard M KasperDepartment of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Lowry Medical Building 3B, 02215, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who have undergone intracranial neurosurgical procedures have traditionally been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) for close postoperative neurological observation. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence for routine ICU admission in patients undergoing intracranial neurosurgical procedures and to evaluate the safety of alternative postoperative pathways.

methodsWe were interested in identifying studies that examined selected patients who presented for elective, non-emergent intracranial surgery whose postoperative outcomes were compared as a function of ICU versus non-ICU admission. A systematic review was performed in July 2016 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist of the Medline database. The search strategy was created based on the following key words: "craniotomy," "neurosurgical procedure," and "intensive care unit."

resultsThe nine articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria yielded a total of 2227 patients. Of these patients, 879 were observed in a non-ICU setting. The most frequent diagnoses were supratentorial brain tumors, followed by patients with cerebrovascular diseases and infratentorial brain tumors. Three percent (30/879) of the patients originally assigned to floor or intermediate care status were transferred to the ICU. The most frequently observed neurological complications leading to ICU transfer were delayed postoperative neurological recovery, seizures, worsening of neurological deficits, hemiparesis, and cranial nerves deficits.

conclusionOur systematic review demonstrates that routine postoperative ICU admission may not benefit carefully selected patients who have undergone elective intracranial neurosurgical procedures. In addition, limiting routine ICU admission may result in significant cost savings.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsCerebrovascular DisordersCraniotomyCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient AdmissionPostoperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsCraniotomyHealthcare qualityIntensive careNeurosurgical proceduresPostoperative complicationsResource allocation

Identifiers

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.