ReviewNeurosurgical review2021
Escalation therapy in severe traumatic brain injury: how long is intracranial pressure monitoring necessary?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Angiographic outcomes after indirect revascularization in pediatric Moyamoya disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Monitoring of Brain Tissue Oxygen Tension in Cardiac Arrest: a Translational Systematic Review from Experimental to Clinical Evidence.Neurocritical care · 2024Pooled it
- Invasive Cerebral Oximetry: What Can Go Wrong? Seven Pitfalls you should know.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Correlation between optic nerve sheath diameter measured by bedside ultrasound and intracranial pressure in neurologically ill patients in a Chinese population.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- In Situ Polymer-Solution-Processed Graphene-PDMS Nanocomposites for Application in Intracranial Pressure Sensors.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Critical ICP thresholds in relation to outcome: Is 22 mmHg really the answer?Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Observational
- Characteristics of traumatic brain injury models: from macroscopic blood flow changes to microscopic mitochondrial changes.Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- Impact of Intracranial Hypertension on Outcome of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Pediatric Patients: A 15-Year Single Center Experience.Pediatric reports · 2022Article
- Efficacy of a Novel Prophylactic Barbiturate Therapy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries: Step-down Infusion of a Barbiturate with Normothermia.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2021Article
- Effect of Mild Hypothermia after Craniotomy on the Function of Related Organs in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.Emergency medicine international · 2021Article
- Novel Synthetic and Natural Therapies for Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neuropharmacology · 2021Review
- Benchmarking mobilization practice and functional outcomes in traumatic brain injury patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a three-year service evaluation.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.