Observational studyActa neurochirurgica2022
Comparative effectiveness of intracranial hypertension management guided by ventricular versus intraparenchymal pressure monitoring: a CENTER-TBI study.
Observational study in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02210221 (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of External Ventricular Drains and Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitors for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Neurocritical care · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring the temporal statistical relationship between commercial cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy signals and intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Net optic nerve sheath diameter as a factor for predicting intracranial hypertension.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Signals from Cerebral near Infrared Spectroscopy Sensor Technology and Objectively Measured Cerebral Blood Volume: A Systematic Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Disparities in casemix, acute interventions, discharge destinations and mortality of patients with traumatic brain injury between Europe and India.Journal of global health · 2024Observational
- Critical thresholds of long-pressure reactivity index and impact of intracranial pressure monitoring methods in traumatic brain injury.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Observational
- Neuromonitoring in Children with Traumatic Brain Injury.Neurocritical care · 2024Review
- Current state of high-fidelity multimodal monitoring in traumatic brain injury.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Review
- Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research.The Lancet. Neurology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare outcomes between patients with primary external ventricular device (EVD)-driven treatment of intracranial hypertension and those with primary intraparenchymal monitor (IP)-driven treatment.
methodsThe CENTER-TBI study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational cohort study that enrolled patients of all TBI severities from 62 participating centers (mainly level I trauma centers) across Europe between 2015 and 2017. Functional outcome was assessed at 6 months and a year. We used multivariable adjusted instrumental variable (IV) analysis with "center" as instrument and logistic regression with covariate adjustment to determine the effect estimate of EVD on 6-month functional outcome.
resultsA total of 878 patients of all TBI severities with an indication for intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were included in the present study, of whom 739 (84%) patients had an IP monitor and 139 (16%) an EVD. Patients included were predominantly male (74% in the IP monitor and 76% in the EVD group), with a median age of 46 years in the IP group and 48 in the EVD group. Six-month GOS-E was similar between IP and EVD patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval [CI] OR 0.74 and 95% CI [0.36-1.52], adjusted IV analysis). The length of intensive care unit stay was greater in the EVD group than in the IP group (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI] 1.70 [1.34-2.12], IV analysis). One hundred eighty-seven of the 739 patients in the IP group (25%) required an EVD due to refractory ICPs.
conclusionWe found no major differences in outcomes of patients with TBI when comparing EVD-guided and IP monitor-guided ICP management. In our cohort, a quarter of patients that initially received an IP monitor required an EVD later for ICP control. The prevalence of complications was higher in the EVD group. PROTOCOL: The core study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582).
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.