ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Personalized treatment approaches in neurocritical care.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiology, monitoring, and optimisation of perioperative tissue oxygenation: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Review
- Risk factors and development of a prediction model for hematoma expansion in elderly patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Neuro-Ophthalmology for Optic Disc Pathologies and Neurodegenerative Disease.Eye and brain · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute brain injuries-including traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage-exhibit profound pathophysiological heterogeneity, yet are often managed using standardized treatment protocols. While evidence-based guidelines have improved outcomes at a population level, they frequently overlook patient-specific variations in cerebral compliance, autoregulation, and metabolic reserve. This review explores the evolving paradigm of personalized neurocritical care, which integrates dynamic multimodal monitoring, individualized intracranial pressure management strategies, and real-time physiological indices such as pressure reactivity index, cerebral perfusion pressure optimization, and waveform analytics. We highlight the role of noninvasive modalities including quantitative pupillometry, transcranial Doppler, optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasound, near-infrared spectroscopy, and electroencephalography as adjuncts when invasive monitoring is limited or contraindicated. Furthermore, we examine tissue-level monitoring using brain oxygen tension and cerebral microdialysis and emerging blood-based biomarkers such as glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light. These tools provide granular insight into evolving secondary injury processes. In parallel, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning enable deep phenotyping, predictive modeling, and integration of high-dimensional data including imaging, physiology, and omics-based profiles. The development of digital twin models further supports individualized simulation and therapeutic planning. While challenges remain in implementation, data harmonization, and resource availability, the convergence of physiologic monitoring, molecular profiling, and computational modeling offers a transformative pathway toward precision medicine in neurocritical care.
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.