ArticleBMJ open2021
Do neurocritical care units improve outcomes for brain-injured adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nurses' Pain Assessment and Attitudes: A Qualitative Study in a Neurointensive Care Unit.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeurocritical care is a rapidly developing subspecialty within intensive care medicine which aims to improve outcomes of critically ill neurological patients. This has inspired the formation of specialised intensive care units or services to provide dedicated care of brain-injured patients, as well as new training pathways for physicians. However, expansion has been variable worldwide and it is yet to be determined if there are clear benefits in regard to patient outcomes. We are planning a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess whether the introduction of neurocritical care units or services, or neurointensivists have favourable effects on survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include all observational and interventional studies comparing specialised neurocritical care units or services with general or non-specialised units in the care of acutely brain-injured adults. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up, and secondary outcomes will be intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and functional outcomes. All relevant studies will be identified through database searches. All study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effects meta-analysis to synthesise evidence for all outcomes. In addition, we will perform a subgroup analysis by disease process. We will assess confidence in the cumulative evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present these at conferences. It will be included in the primary author's higher degree research thesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177190.
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.