Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35816237›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine2022

Intracranial pressure: current perspectives on physiology and monitoring.

Gregory W J Hawryluk, Giuseppe Citerio, Peter Hutchinson, Angelos Kolias, Geert Meyfroidt, Chiara Robba, Nino Stocchetti, Randall Chesnut

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 97 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Intraindividual Optic Nerve Sheath Variation and Intracranial Pressure Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with craniosynostosis: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gregory W J HawrylukSection of Neurosurgery, University of Manitoba, GB1, 820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3A 1R9, Canada. ghawryluk@hsc.mb.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5604-7057
Giuseppe CiterioSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Peter HutchinsonDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK.
Angelos KoliasDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB20QQ, UK.
Geert MeyfroidtDepartment and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 7003, 63 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Chiara RobbaAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, San Martino Research Hospital, Genoa, Italy.
Nino StocchettiAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Physiopathology and Transplantation, Milan University, Milan, Italy.
Randall ChesnutNeurosurgery, Neurotrauma, Department of Neurological Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Global Health, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Mailstop 359766, Seattle, WA, 98104-2499, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is now viewed as integral to the clinical care of many life-threatening brain insults, such as severe traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and malignant stroke. It serves to warn of expanding intracranial mass lesions, to prevent or treat herniation events as well as pressure elevation which impedes nutrient delivery to the brain. It facilitates the calculation of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and the estimation of cerebrovascular autoregulatory status. Despite advancements in our knowledge emanating from a half century of experience with this technology, important controversies remain related even to fundamental aspects of ICP measurements, including indications for monitoring, ICP treatment thresholds, and management of intracranial hypertension. Here, we review the history of ICP monitoring, the underlying pathophysiology as well as current perspectives on why, when and how ICP monitoring is best used. ICP is typically assessed invasively but a number of emerging, non-invasive technologies with inherently lower risk are showing promise. In selected cases, additional neuromonitoring can be used to assist in the interpretation of ICP monitoring information and adapt directed treatment accordingly. Additional efforts to expand the evidence base relevant to ICP monitoring, related technologies and management remain a high priority in neurosurgery and neurocritical care.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticIntracranial HypertensionCerebrovascular CirculationHumansIntracranial PressureMonitoring, PhysiologicCritical careIntracranial hypertensionIntracranial pressureMonitoringNon-invasivePhysiologyTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

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.