Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29650049›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2018

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.

Jilske A Huijben, Victor Volovici, Maryse C Cnossen, Iain K Haitsma, Nino Stocchetti, Andrew I R Maas, David K Menon, Ari Ercole, Giuseppe Citerio, David Nelson and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. PaCONeurocritical care · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Acute kidney injury in neurocritical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  14. Development and first results of a national databank on care and treatment outcome after traumatic brain injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Tackling Neuroinflammation After Traumatic Brain Injury: Complement Inhibition as a Therapy for Secondary Injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Jilske A HuijbenCenter for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. j.a.huijben@erasmusmc.nl.
Victor VoloviciCenter for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maryse C CnossenCenter for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Iain K HaitsmaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Office H-703, Erasmus MC Stroke Center and Brain Tumor Center, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nino StocchettiDepartment of Pathophysiology and Transplants, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Andrew I R MaasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
David K MenonDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Ari ErcoleDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Giuseppe CiterioSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
David NelsonSection for Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Suzanne PolinderCenter for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergCenter for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Hester F LingsmaCenter for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Mathieu van der JagtDepartment of Intensive Care and Erasmus MC Stroke Center, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
CENTER-TBI investigators and participants
Erasmus MC · NLAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBKarolinska Institutet · SELeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

Department of Health 12/35/57Department of Health HTA/13/15/02Department of Health II-C5-0715-20005Department of Health NIHR-RP-R3-12-013Medical Research Council G0502030Medical Research Council G0600986Medical Research Council G0601025Medical Research Council G1002277Medical Research Council G9439390Seventh Framework Programme 602150
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers.

methodsWe performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment.

resultsThe survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO

conclusionsPractice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome.

Indexed as

AdultBrain Injuries, TraumaticComparative Effectiveness ResearchEuropeFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleProgram EvaluationQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTrauma CentersBlood pressureEuropeFeverGlucoseIntensive care unitNutritionSeizureSurveyTraumatic brain injuryVentilation

Identifiers

PMID29650049
PMCPMC5898014
OpenAlexW2796739757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.