Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33215367›Full record

ReviewNeurosurgical review2021

Escalation therapy in severe traumatic brain injury: how long is intracranial pressure monitoring necessary?

Pasquale Anania, Denise Battaglini, John P Miller, Alberto Balestrino, Alessandro Prior, Alessandro D'Andrea, Filippo Badaloni, Paolo Pelosi, Chiara Robba, Gianluigi Zona and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Pasquale AnaniaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy. pas.anania@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8477-9629
Denise BattagliniAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
John P MillerLouisiana State University, Health Sciences University, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Alberto BalestrinoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Alessandro PriorDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Alessandro D'AndreaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Filippo BadaloniDivision of Neurosurgery, IRCCS Institute of Neurological Sciences of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Paolo PelosiAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Chiara RobbaAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Gianluigi ZonaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Pietro FiaschiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITInstitute of Neurological Sciences · ITLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury frequently causes an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP) that could lead to reduction of cerebral perfusion pressure and cause brain ischemia. Invasive ICP monitoring is recommended by international guidelines, in order to reduce the incidence of secondary brain injury; although rare, the complications related to ICP probes could be dependent on the duration of monitoring. The aim of this manuscript is to clarify the appropriate timing for removal and management of invasive ICP monitoring, in order to reduce the risk of related complications and guarantee adequate cerebral autoregulatory control. There is no universal consensus concerning the duration of invasive ICP monitoring and its related complications, although the pertinent literature seems to show that the longer is the monitoring maintenance, the higher is the risk of technical issues. Besides, upon 72 h of normal ICP values or less than 72 h if the first computed tomography scan is normal (none or minimal signs of injury) and the neurological exam is available (allowing to observe variations and possible occurrence of new-onset pathological response), the removal of invasive ICP monitoring can be justified. The availability of non-invasive monitoring systems should be considered to follow up patients' clinical course after invasive ICP probe removal or for substituting the invasive monitoring in case of contraindication to its placement. Recently, optic nerve sheath diameter and straight sinus systolic flow velocity evaluation through ultrasound methods showed a good correlation with ICP values, demonstrating their potential role in place of invasive monitoring or in the early weaning phase from the invasive ICP monitoring.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesBrain Injuries, TraumaticIntracranial HypertensionCerebrovascular CirculationHumansIntracranial PressureMonitoring, PhysiologicBrain injuryDurationICPMonitoringTBIWeaning

Identifiers

PMID33215367
PMCPMC7676754
OpenAlexW3103269524

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.