Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31240622›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2020

Observations on the Cerebral Effects of Refractory Intracranial Hypertension After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Joseph Donnelly, Peter Smielewski, Hadie Adams, Frederick A Zeiler, Danilo Cardim, Xiuyun Liu, Marta Fedriga, Peter Hutchinson, David K Menon, Marek Czosnyka

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Joseph DonnellyBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. joseph.donnelly@cantab.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6502-8069
Peter SmielewskiBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Hadie AdamsDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Frederick A ZeilerDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-0510
Danilo CardimDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Xiuyun LiuBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marta FedrigaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter HutchinsonDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
David K MenonDivision of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marek CzosnykaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of British Columbia · CAWarsaw University of Technology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRaised intracranial pressure (ICP) is a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, in the clinical setting, little is known about the cerebral physiological response to severe and prolonged increases in ICP.

methodsThirty-three severe TBI patients from a single center who developed severe refractory intracranial hypertension (ICP > 40 mm Hg for longer than 1 h) with ICP, arterial blood pressure, and brain tissue oxygenation (P

resultsPRx deteriorated from 0.06 ± 0.26 a.u. at baseline levels of ICP to 0.57 ± 0.24 a.u. (p < 0.0001) at high levels of ICP (> 50 mm Hg). In 4 cases, PRx was impaired (> 0.25 a.u.) before ICP was raised above 25 mm Hg. Concurrently, P DISCUSSION: Severe intracranial hypertension after TBI leads to decreased brain oxygenation, impaired pressure reactivity, and changes in the pulse amplitude of ICP. Impaired pressure reactivity may denote increased risk of developing refractory intracranial hypertension in some patients.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultArterial PressureBrainBrain Injuries, TraumaticCerebrovascular CirculationDecompressive CraniectomyFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleHomeostasisHumansIntracranial HypertensionMaleMortalityOxygenRetrospective StudiesOxygenAutoregulationCerebral hemodynamicsCerebral oxygenationCerebral perfusion pressureIntracranial hypertensionIntracranial pressureTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID31240622
PMCPMC7082389
OpenAlexW2954157426

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.