Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32375853›Full record

ReviewFluids and barriers of the CNS2020

Measuring intracranial pressure by invasive, less invasive or non-invasive means: limitations and avenues for improvement.

Karen Brastad Evensen, Per Kristian Eide

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05335902 (The Influence of Extracorporeal Circulation During Cardiac Surgery on Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter), which is not on this map. Cited by 76 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT05335902 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Influence of Extracorporeal Circulation During Cardiac Surgery on Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Medical Centre MariborRan2021 to 2024Enrolled100ConditionsCardiac Disease, Cardiac Valve DiseaseArmsultrasound measurement of the optic nerve sheath diameter, MoCA test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen Brastad EvensenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Per Kristian EideDepartment of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet, P.O. Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. p.k.eide@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6881-9280
Oslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

Health South East of Norway 2016032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sixty years have passed since neurosurgeon Nils Lundberg presented his thesis about intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring, which represents a milestone for its clinical introduction. Monitoring of ICP has since become a clinical routine worldwide, and today represents a cornerstone in surveillance of patients with acute brain injury or disease, and a diagnostic of individuals with chronic neurological disease. There is, however, controversy regarding indications, clinical usefulness and the clinical role of the various ICP scores. In this paper, we critically review limitations and weaknesses with the current ICP measurement approaches for invasive, less invasive and non-invasive ICP monitoring. While risk related to the invasiveness of ICP monitoring is extensively covered in the literature, we highlight other limitations in current ICP measurement technologies, including limited ICP source signal quality control, shifts and drifts in zero pressure reference level, affecting mean ICP scores and mean ICP-derived indices. Control of the quality of the ICP source signal is particularly important for non-invasive and less invasive ICP measurements. We conclude that we need more focus on mitigation of the current limitations of today's ICP modalities if we are to improve the clinical utility of ICP monitoring.

Indexed as

Neurophysiological MonitoringBrain DiseasesHumansIntracranial PressureIntracranial pressureMiniature pressure sensorsNon-invasive ICPPulsatile ICPStatic ICP

Identifiers

PMID32375853
PMCPMC7201553
OpenAlexW3023459037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.