ArticleBrain & spine2024
International e-Delphi survey to define best practice in the reporting of intracranial pressure monitoring recording data.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Novel way of displaying Delphi responses when collecting through the REDCap data collection system.Trials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.