Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40161215›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2025

Intracranial pressure and pulsatility in different head and body positions.

Matthew J Bancroft, Eleanor M Moncur, Amy L Peters, Linda D'Antona, Lewis Thorne, Laurence D Watkins, Brian L Day, Ahmed K Toma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Matthew J BancroftDepartment of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-5058
Eleanor M MoncurDepartment of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Amy L PetersDepartment of Clinical & Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Linda D'AntonaDepartment of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9918-5225
Lewis ThorneDepartment of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Laurence D WatkinsDepartment of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Brian L DayDepartment of Clinical & Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Ahmed K TomaDepartment of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracranial pressure (ICP) is typically measured with the head in a neutral position whilst the body is in an upright or supine posture. The effect of body position on ICP is well studied, with ICP greater when supine than when upright. In daily life the head is frequently moved away from the neutral position but how this impacts ICP dynamics is unclear. Knowledge of ICP dynamics in different head-on-body positions may improve future treatments that restore normal ICP dynamics such as CSF drainage shunts. We recruited 57 relatively well, ambulatory patients undergoing clinical ICP monitoring for investigation of possible CSF dynamics disturbances to a single-centre, cross-sectional study. Forty-one patients were non-shunted, seven had a working shunt and nine had a malfunctioning shunt. We measured ICP and ICP pulsatility (pulse amplitude) over 10 or 20 s in different combinations of head and body positions. Positions included right and left head turn and forward tilt in upright (seated, standing) and supine body positions, and right and left lateral tilt and backward tilt in upright body positions. ICP increased by 3-9 mmHg, on average, when the head moved away from neutral to each head position in upright and supine body positions, except for head forward tilt when supine, where ICP did not change. The increase in ICP with head turn and forward tilt in upright body positions was larger in patients with a malfunctioning shunt than with no shunt or a functioning shunt. Pulsatility also increased by 0.5-2 mmHg on average when the head moved away from neutral to each head position in upright and supine body positions, except for head forward tilt in upright body positions where pulsatility slightly decreased by 0.7 mmHg on average. ICP and pulsatility generally increase when the head is moved away from the neutral position, but this depends on a combination of head and body position and shunt status. We propose our results can be explained by a combination of changes to neck vasculature and head orientation relative to gravity. Our findings provide potential reason for patient reports that ICP-related symptoms can be induced and/or exacerbated by head movement and could explain behaviours that avoid excess head movement, such as turning the body rather than the head when looking to the side. Our data describe the predicted change in ICP in different head and body positions and could underpin future smart shunt design.

Indexed as

body positioncerebrospinal fluid pressurehead positionhydrocephalusintracranial pressure

Identifiers

PMID40161215
PMCPMC11954551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.