Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41507671›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2026

Medical Decision-Making and Process Measures in a Consultative Hub-and-Spoke Teleneurocritical Care Network.

Ribal Bitar, Cynthia Whitney, Marcelo Matiello, Eric S Rosenthal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ribal BitarDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Cynthia WhitneyDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Marcelo MatielloDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Eric S RosenthalDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. erosenthal@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3900-356X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeleneurocritical care (TeleNCC) aims to project expertise to hospitals lacking dedicated neurocritical care. However, its influence on clinical care remains underexplored.

methodsWe prospectively studied two TeleNCC cohorts. Within a tertiary care medical decision-making cohort, TeleNCC consultants documented recommended changes in prespecified aspects of evaluation and management for patients at a tertiary care hospital with neurosurgery, neurology, and critical care but without dedicated neurocritical care. In a separate community process measure cohort, TeleNCC consultants documented prespecified process measures (consultation duration, transfer to tertiary care versus local patient retention, and approaches to brain death determination) for patients across ten community hospitals lacking on-site neurology support. Differences were evaluated by site and diagnosis.

resultsWithin the tertiary care medical decision-making cohort (n = 123), TeleNCC consultants recommended changes in evaluation and management for 71.8% of patients, including neuroimaging, neuromonitoring, medication initiation/adjustment, operative management, and de-escalation from critical care. TeleNCC consultations often did not require video evaluation. Within the community process measure cohort (n = 1493), consultation duration varied by site. Tertiary care transfer was rare (0-9.2% among 9 of 10 hospitals), although patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) were transferred more frequently (38.5%; p < 0.001) than patients with toxic-metabolic/systemic encephalopathy, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, or other cerebrovascular disorders. Community hospital providers evaluated 47 patients for brain death under TeleNCC guidance; 16 (61.5%) of 26 patients evaluated by clinical criteria alone met criteria, as well as 16 (76.2%) of 21 patients evaluated via additional ancillary testing.

conclusionsFor patients at a tertiary care hospital, TeleNCC consultants recommended changes in medical decision-making for the vast majority of patients, whereas community hospital patients receiving TeleNCC consultation as their initial neurologic evaluation rarely required transfer to tertiary care, despite complex conditions, including suspected brain death. These observational cohorts demonstrate the versatility and efficiency of TeleNCC across care settings, although interventional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of TeleNCC on clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCritical CareNeurologyRemote ConsultationAdultAgedFemaleHospitals, CommunityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient TransferProspective StudiesTertiary Care CentersBrain deathCommunity hospitalsDecision-makingHub-and-spokePatient transfersTeleneurocritical care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.