ArticleActa neurochirurgica. Supplement2021
Noninvasive Intracranial Pressure Assessment in Patients with Suspected Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of intracranial pressure assessment with a non-invasive transcranial doppler and arterial blood pressure method in patients with suspected idiopathic intracranial hypertension.The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring-Single Centre Observational Study and Literature Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Observational
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIdiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) usually occurs in obese women of childbearing age. Typical symptoms are headache and sight disorders. Besides ophthalmoscopy, lumbar puncture is used for both diagnosis and therapy of IIH. In this study, noninvasively-assessed intracranial pressure (nICP) was compared to lumbar pressure (LP) to clarify its suitability for diagnosis of IIH.
methodsnICP was calculated using continuous signals of arterial blood pressure and cerebral blood flow velocity, a method previously introduced by the authors. In thirteen patients (f = 11, m = 2; age: 36 ± 10 years), nICP was assessed 1 h prior to LP. If LP was >20 cmH
resultsIn six patients, LP and nICP were compared after lumbar drainage. In three patients, assessment of nICP versus LP was repeated. In total, LP and nICP correlated with R = 0.82 (p < 0.001; N = 22). Mean difference of ICP-nICP was 0.8 ± 3.7 mmHg. Presuming 15 mmHg as critical threshold for indication of lumbar drainage in 20 of 22 cases, the clinical implications would have been the same in both methods.
conclusionTCD-based ICP assessment seems to be a promising method for pre-diagnosis of increased LP and might prevent the need for lumbar puncture if nICP is low.
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.