Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33839813›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica. Supplement2021

Comparison of Two Intracranial Pressure Calculation Methods and Their Effects on the Mean Intracranial Pressure and Intracranial Pressure Dose.

Ka Hing Chu, Erta Beqiri, Marek Czosnyka, Peter Smielewski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Ka Hing ChuBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. khc42@cam.ac.uk.
Erta BeqiriBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marek CzosnykaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter SmielewskiBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared two methods of calculating the intracranial pressure (ICP) in a patient: end-hour ICP and hour-averaged ICP. A total of 1060 patients with traumatic brain injury and a known clinical outcome were studied. For each patient, the end-hour ICP and hour-averaged ICP were calculated. The mean ICP and the ICP dose above 20 mmHg were evaluated using both calculation methods. The results for patients who survived and those who died were compared using a Student's t test. The average correlation between the end-hour and hour-averaged mean ICP was 0.747, indicating that the end-hour ICP method agrees moderately with the hour-averaged method. However, the comparison between surviving and dead patients did not present significant differences between ICP values averaged with these two different methods. The Student's t test gave similar results for both the mean ICP and ICP dose. The results suggest that the end-hour and hour-averaged methods have similar predictive power for patients' clinical outcome.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticIntracranial HypertensionHumansIntracranial PressureRetrospective StudiesEnd-hour ICPHour-averaged ICPIntracranial pressureTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID33839813

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.