Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37061612›Full record

Observational studyActa neurochirurgica2023

Can a new noninvasive method for assessment of intracranial pressure predict intracranial hypertension and prognosis?

Matheus Ballestero, Celeste Dias, Inês Catarina Neves Gomes, Luca Soares Grisi, Rodrigo Augusto Monteiro Cardoso, Edson Luis Zucoloto Júnior, Ricardo Santos de Oliveira

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Non-invasive intracranial pressure monitoring in management of slit ventricle syndrome-case report.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Evolving concepts in intracranial pressure monitoring - from traditional monitoring to precision medicine.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Matheus BallesteroDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil. ballestero@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6643-1207
Celeste DiasHospital São João, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0340-9808
Inês Catarina Neves GomesHospital São João, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3372-0560
Luca Soares GrisiRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4186-0245
Rodrigo Augusto Monteiro CardosoRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2016-9642
Edson Luis Zucoloto JúniorRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0355-890X
Ricardo Santos de OliveiraRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0390-5553
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversidade Federal de São Carlos · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIndividuals with TBI are at risk of intracranial hypertension (ICH), and monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) is usually indicated. However, despite many new noninvasive devices, none is sufficiently accurate and effective for application in clinical practice, particularly in the management of TBIs. This study aimed to compare the noninvasive Brain4Care system (nICP) with invasive ICP (iICP) curve parameters in their ability to predict ICH and functional prognosis in severe TBI.

methodsObservational, descriptive-analytical, and prospective study of 22 patients between 2018 and 2021, simultaneously monitored with nICP and iICP. The independent variables evaluated were the presence of ICH and functional prognoses. The dependent variables were the P2/P1 pressure ratio metrics, time to peak (TTP), and TTP × P2/P1.

resultsWe found a good nonlinear correlation between iICP and nICP waveforms, despite a moderate Pearson's linear correlation. The noninvasive parameters of P2/P1, P2/P1 × TTP, and TTP were not associated with outcomes or ICH. The nICP P2/P1 ratio showed sensitivity/specificity/accuracy (%) of 100/0/56.3, respectively for 1-month outcomes and 77.8/22.2/50 for 6-month outcomes. The nICP TTP ratio had values of 100/0/56.3 for 1-month and 99.9/42.9/72.2 for 6-month outcomes. The nICP P2/P1 × TTP values were 100/0/56.3 for 1-month outcomes and 81.8/28.6/61.1 for 6-month outcomes.

conclusionBrain4Care's noninvasive method showed low specificity and accuracy and cannot be used as the sole means of monitoring ICP in patients with severe TBI. Future studies with a larger sample of patients with P2 > P1 and new nICP curve parameters are warranted.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticIntracranial HypertensionHumansIntracranial PressurePrognosisProspective StudiesUltrasonography, Doppler, TranscranialIntracranial hypertensionIntracranial pressureNon-invasive techniquesPrognosisTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID37061612
PMCPMC10105611
OpenAlexW4365814856

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.