Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36476747›Full record

ReviewPediatric research2023

Neuromonitoring in neonatal critical care part I: neonatal encephalopathy and neonates with possible seizures.

Mohamed El-Dib, Nicholas S Abend, Topun Austin, Geraldine Boylan, Valerie Chock, M Roberta Cilio, Gorm Greisen, Lena Hellström-Westas, Petra Lemmers, Adelina Pellicer and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.

Mohamed El-DibDepartment of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. mel-dib@bwh.harvard.edu.
Nicholas S AbendDepartments of Neurology and Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Topun AustinDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Geraldine BoylanINFANT Research Centre & Department of Paediatrics & Child Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Valerie ChockDivision of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
M Roberta CilioDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Neurology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Gorm GreisenDepartment of Neonatology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital & Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lena Hellström-WestasDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, and Division of Neonatology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Petra LemmersDepartment of Neonatology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Adelina PellicerDepartment of Neonatology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; Neonatology Group, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
Ronit M PresslerDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, and Clinical Neuroscience, UCL- Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Arnold SansevereDepartment of Neurology and Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences; Children's National Hospital Division of Neurophysiology, Epilepsy and Critical Care, Washington, DC, USA.
Tammy TsuchidaDepartment of Neurology and Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences; Children's National Hospital Division of Neurophysiology, Epilepsy and Critical Care, Washington, DC, USA.
Sampsa VanhataloDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Children's Hospital, BABA Center, Neuroscience Center/HILIFE, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Courtney J WusthoffDivision of Child Neurology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Newborn Brain Society Guidelines and Publications Committee
Stanford University · USGeorge Washington University · USHospital for Sick Children · CABrigham and Women's Hospital · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USChildren's National · USCleveland Clinic · USCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BECopenhagen University Hospital · DKDuke University · USHospital La Paz Institute for Health Research · ESLurie Children's Hospital · USMontreal Children's Hospital · CAUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity College London · GBUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The blooming of neonatal neurocritical care over the last decade reflects substantial advances in neuromonitoring and neuroprotection. The most commonly used brain monitoring tools in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are amplitude integrated EEG (aEEG), full multichannel continuous EEG (cEEG), and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). While some published guidelines address individual tools, there is no consensus on consistent, efficient, and beneficial use of these modalities in common NICU scenarios. This work reviews current evidence to assist decision making for best utilization of neuromonitoring modalities in neonates with encephalopathy or with possible seizures. Neuromonitoring approaches in extremely premature and critically ill neonates are discussed separately in the companion paper. IMPACT: Neuromonitoring techniques hold promise for improving neonatal care. For neonatal encephalopathy, aEEG can assist in screening for eligibility for therapeutic hypothermia, though should not be used to exclude otherwise eligible neonates. Continuous cEEG, aEEG and NIRS through rewarming can assist in prognostication. For neonates with possible seizures, cEEG is the gold standard for detection and diagnosis. If not available, aEEG as a screening tool is superior to clinical assessment alone. The use of seizure detection algorithms can help with timely seizures detection at the bedside.

Indexed as

Brain DiseasesInfant, Newborn, DiseasesCritical CareElectroencephalographyHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalSeizures

Identifiers

PMID36476747
OpenAlexW4310960929

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.