Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39149423›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2024

International e-Delphi survey to define best practice in the reporting of intracranial pressure monitoring recording data.

Maya Kommer, Christopher Hawthorne, Laura Moss, Ian Piper, Roddy O'Kane, Marek Czosnyka, Per Enblad, J Claude Hemphill, Andreas Spiegelberg, John S Riddell and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Maya KommerNHS Greater Glasgow Clyde, UK.
Christopher HawthorneNHS Greater Glasgow Clyde, UK.
Laura MossNHS Greater Glasgow Clyde, UK.
Ian PiperUniversity of Edinburgh, UK.
Roddy O'KaneNHS Greater Glasgow Clyde, UK.
Marek CzosnykaDivision of Neurosurgery, Cambridge University Hospitals, UK.
Per EnbladDepartment of Medical Sciences, Section of Neurosurgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
J Claude HemphillDepartment of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Andreas SpiegelbergThe Interface Group, Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
John S RiddellUniversity of Glasgow, UK.
Martin ShawNHS Greater Glasgow Clyde, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is a very commonly performed neurosurgical procedure but there is a wide variation in how it is reported, hindering analysis of it. The current study sought to generate consensus on the reporting of ICP monitoring recording data. Research question: "What should be included in an ICP monitoring report?" Material and methods: The exercise was completed via a modified eDelphi survey. An expert panel discussion was held from which themes were identified and used to produce a code to annotate the transcript of the discussion. Statements were generated for a further two rounds of electronic questionnaires distributed via the REDcap platform. A Likert scale was used to grade agreement with each statement in the survey. A statement was accepted if more than 70% agreement was achieved between respondents. Data was collated using Microsoft Excel and analysed using R. Results: 149 relevant statements were identified from the transcript and categorised into recording parameters, waveform characteristics or reporting. A total of 22 statements were generated for the first round of the survey which was answered by 39 respondents. Following the electronic round of surveys consensus was achieved for all but one statement regarding the acceptability of automating ICP reporting. This was put forward to a second round after which 79% agreement was reached. Discussion and conclusion: The themes and statements from this eDelphi can be used as a framework to allow the standardisation of the reporting of intracranial pressure monitoring data.

Indexed as

HydrocephalusIntracranial pressure monitoringTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID39149423
PMCPMC11325271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.