SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025
Effect of blood pressure threshold on adverse outcomes in patients with acute spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality After Operative Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis From 2021 to 2023.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Mean Arterial Pressure Augmentation for Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Neurological Recovery and Mortality.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Machine learning-driven prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest among critically ill patients with traumatic spinal cord injury: a multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Injury to Time of Marked Recovery as a New Acute Spinal Cord Injury Outcome Measurement for Statistical Analysis of Interventions and Drug Treatments.Neurotrauma reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate spinal perfusion in acute spinal cord injury (SCI) can exacerbate secondary injury. While current guidelines recommend maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 75-80mmHg post-injury, no quantitative analysis on effects of blood pressure on neurological outcomes exists. We aim to address this gap and evaluate the impact of blood pressure thresholds on adverse outcomes in acute traumatic and non-traumatic SCI to inform current guidelines.
methodsThe project adhered to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024550044). We searched seven databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies involving patients ≥ 16yrs with acute SCI, randomized control trials, prospective cohorts, and retrospective (case-control, cohort) studies. Excluded were chronic SCI and studies mentioning induced hypotension. The main outcome was the relationship between blood pressure thresholds and adverse functional outcome at up to one-year post-injury. Outcomes (unadjusted odds ratios (uOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR)) were calculated using a random-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
resultsOf 16,366 identified articles, 38 (n = 7,167, 73% male) were included in the qualitative and 14 (n = 2,553, 76% male) in the quantitative analysis. Pooled analysis found an increase in adverse functional outcomes in patients with below threshold blood pressures (uOR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.39-4.50; aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). Subgroup analyses consistently showed that lower blood pressure thresholds were associated with worse outcomes across all subgroups. Risk of bias was low to moderate in most studies. Heterogeneity was moderate to high (I
conclusionLower blood pressure thresholds were consistently associated with worse functional outcomes in patients with acute SCI. While these findings support the rationale for MAP augmentation, they should be interpreted cautiously due to the observational nature of the data and high heterogeneity. High-quality prospective studies are needed to determine optimal blood pressure targets.
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.