Observational studyNeurocritical care2026
What Do We Do When the ICP Goes Up?
Observational study 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveWe sought to study which intracranial pressure (ICP)-lowering treatments are actually administered following the diagnosis of a clinical intracranial hypertension episode (CLICHÉ) during modern, routine care.
methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of data from patients with ICP only (normal or blinded partial pressure of brain tissue oxygen [PbtO
resultsOf the 119 randomized patients, 70 had 509 CLICHÉs that met forme fruste definition with complete datasets (71% of total CLICHÉs). Analgosedation adjustment and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage were the predominant treatments, used respectively in 72% and 33% of full CLICHÉs and within the first 15 min in 53% and 31%. In combination, they were the third most common intervention. Treatments often involved agent combinations (41% for full CLICHÉs; 46% within the first 15 min). Treatments that could be readily and discretionally administered by the bedside clinician represented 76% of treatments for full CLICHÉs and 69% for early interventions.
conclusionsAnalgosedation adjustment predominates as the treatment of choice for forme fruste CLICHÉs despite scarce literature support regarding mechanism, efficacy or influence on outcome. Frequent use of agent combinations confounds use of treatments (e.g. therapeutic intensity level) as a descriptive variable. Although details regarding clinical reasoning underlying intervention choices are lacking, it appears that intervention choice may be influenced by expediency outside of effectiveness. These findings accent the importance of understanding how treatment protocols are actually implemented. Investigation of the proper role of analgosedation adjustment and treatment combinations in ICP control is needed. Current management practices require targeted, physiology-based treatment guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41949746What 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.