GuidelineCritical care (London, England)2024
Intracranial multimodal monitoring in neurocritical care (Neurocore-iMMM): an open, decentralized consensus.
Guideline in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Multimodality Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- Brain monitoring during anesthesia and critical care: a call for research, collaboration, and implementation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Implantation Standards for Intracranial Multimodal Monitoring (Neurocore-iMMM): An International Delphi Consensus.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Practicalities of noninvasive neuromonitoring in intensive care.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Neurological Complications in Intensive Care Units: From Delirium to Long-Term Cognitive Dysfunction-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intracranial pressure management in severe intraventricular hemorrhage: A minireview.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Development and investigation of the psychometric properties of the rehabilitation resilience scale (RRS) for caregivers of children with cerebral palsy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An In Vitro Calibration Model for Vancomycin Quantification in Brain Extracellular Fluid: Toward Improved Dosing in Postoperative Infections.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Article
- The Collapse of Brain Clearance: Glymphatic-Venous Failure, Aquaporin-4 Breakdown, and AI-Empowered Precision Neurotherapeutics in Intracranial Hypertension.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Critical care medicine and intensive care in obstetrics: in search of a legacyRevista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia · 2025Article
- A prognostic model for long-term outcome in moderate-severe traumatic brain injury using multimodal neuromonitoring: a retrospective cohort analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracranial multimodal monitoring (iMMM) is increasingly used in neurocritical care, but a lack of standardization hinders its evidence-based development. Here, we devised core outcome sets (COS) and reporting guidelines to harmonize iMMM practices and research.
methodsAn open, decentralized, three-round Delphi consensus study involved experts between December 2023 and June 2024. Items-spanning three domains: (i) patient characteristics, (ii) practices, and (iii) outcomes-with ≥ 75% agreement were classified as strong agreement, while those with 50-75% were reconsidered in subsequent rounds, requiring ≥ 66% for moderate agreement.
resultsAn international, multidisciplinary panel comprised 58 neurocritical physicians and researchers with low attrition (12%). They were predominantly from Western regions (96%), actively involved in iMMM (82%), at least weekly (72.4%), with more than 10 years of specific experience (57%). Of the 127 items assessed for inclusion in COS and reporting guidelines, 45 (35.4%) reached strong and 8 (6.3%) moderate agreement. Main strong agreement items were: (i) demographics: age (98%) and sex/gender (90%); comorbidities: coagulation/platelet disorders (95%); initial scoring: Glasgow Coma Scale (97%) and pathology-specific scores (90%); active treatments: antithrombotics (95%) (ii) clinical practice: iMMM implantation indications (98%) and iMMM-guided interventions (91%); surgical practice: targeting strategies (97%) and concomitant external ventricular drainage (97%); technical details: recording modalities (98%); (iii) monitoring parameters: duration (97%) and triggered interventions (95%); standardized outcome reporting (93%); surgical complications (e.g., postoperative intracranial hemorrhages, CNS infections, and probe misplacement, all > 90%) and adverse events (accidental dislodgement, probe breakage, and technical malfunctions, all > 90%).
conclusionThis consensus establishes foundational COS and reporting guidelines for iMMM in neurocritical care. These harmonization tools can enhance research quality, comparability, and reproducibility, facilitating evidence-based practices for this emerging technology. However, challenges remain in developing purpose-specific guidelines and adapting them to diverse clinical and research settings.
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.