ArticleNeurocritical care2024
Variations in Autoregulation-Based Optimal Cerebral Perfusion Pressure Determination Using Two Integrated Neuromonitoring Platforms in a Trauma Patient.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ups and downs of cerebral autoregulation in the intensive care unit: why should we care?Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Personalizing the Pressure Reactivity Index for Quantifying Cerebral Autoregulation in Neurocritical Care.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Article
- Dynamic versus fixed cerebral perfusion pressure targets in paediatric traumatic brain injury: a STARSHIP analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- An open source autoregulation-based neuromonitoring algorithm shows PRx and optimal CPP association with pediatric traumatic brain injury.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Article
- Unlocking the potential of high-resolution multimodality neuromonitoring for traumatic brain injury management: lessons and insights from cases, events, and patterns.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- CPPopt on Medical Devices: The Imitation Game.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuromonitoring devices are often used in traumatic brain injury. The objective of this report is to raise awareness concerning variations in optimal cerebral perfusion pressure (CPPopt) determination using exploratory information provided by two neuromonitoring monitors that are part of research programs (Moberg CNS Monitor and RAUMED NeuroSmart LogO).
methodsWe connected both monitors simultaneously to a parenchymal intracranial pressure catheter and recorded the pressure reactivity index (PRx) and the derived CPPopt estimates for a patient with a severe traumatic brain injury. These estimates were available at the bedside and were updated at each minute.
resultsUsing the Bland and Altman method, we found a mean variation of - 3.8 (95% confidence internal from - 8.5 to 0.9) mm Hg between the CPPopt estimates provided by the two monitors (limits of agreement from - 26.6 to 19.1 mm Hg). The PRx and CPPopt trends provided by the two monitors were similar over time, but CPPopt trends differed when PRx values were around zero. Also, almost half of the CPPopt estimates differed by more than 10 mm Hg.
conclusionsThese wide variations recorded in the same patient are worrisome and reiterate the importance of understanding and standardizing the methodology and algorithms behind commercial neuromonitoring devices prior to incorporating them in clinical use.
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.