Evidence map›Paper›PMID 3403775›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine1988

Serial recordings of auditory brainstem responses in severe head injury: relationship between test timing and prognostic power.

E Facco, M Munari, M Casartelli Liviero, P Caputo, A Martini, F Toffoletto, G Giron

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 1988. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials during procaine toxicity in dogs.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 1992
    Article
  3. Short latency evoked potentials: new criteria for brain death?Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 1990
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E FaccoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padua, Italy.
M Munari
M Casartelli Liviero
P Caputo
A Martini
F Toffoletto
G Giron
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ABRs have proved to be very accurate prognostic indicators in severe head injury, even when predictions are based on single ABR recordings. In this study we submitted 30 severely head-injured patients to serial ABR recordings (during the clinical course of posttraumatic coma) in order to verify whether the ABR prognostic power may depend on test timing in relation to the injury. 15 patients (50%) died, 5 (16.7%) remained vegetative, 2 (6.6%) severely disabled and 8 (26.7%) recovered. All recovered patients had normal ABR throughout clinical course, while severely disabled and vegetative patients showed at least transently ABR abnormalities (namely, an interpeak latency of waves V-I greater than 4.48 ms). Among dead patients, 8 showed steady and 3 transient ABR abnormalities during the clinical course, while 2 of 3 patients with normal ABR dead from extracranial complications. ABRs were significantly related to the outcome at any time, but gave more accurate prognostic indications on days 3-6 after the injury. The use of serial ABR recordings appeared to improve the outcome predictions in comparison with single ABR tests. Finally our result confirm the previously reported existance of a breakpoint between reversible brainstem dysfunction and irreversible brainstem damage defined by an IPL V-I of about 4.50 ms.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, AuditoryAdolescentAdultBrain InjuriesBrain StemComaHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID3403775
OpenAlexW2124433640

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.