ReviewIntensive care medicine2026
Non-invasive intracranial pressure estimation in the intensive care unit: narrative review of methods and clinical applications.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite invasive methods are the gold standard for intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement, several non-invasive techniques (nICP) have been proposed as surrogate, although their use remains insufficiently recognized in clinical practice. These include transcranial Doppler blood flow velocity assessment (arterial or venous), optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), automated pupillometry, measurement of skull expansion and compliance, brain imaging, double-depth ophthalmic artery blood flow velocity, and ultrasound time-of-flight. The main limitations of all indirect methods are calibration and zeroing, which constrain the absolute accuracy of non-invasive ICP monitoring. For transcranial Doppler-based methods, the 95% limits of agreement are approximately ± 7-15 mmHg, while for ONSD-based techniques they range from ± 7-10 mmHg. Improved predictive accuracy may be achieved by combining different modalities and applying advanced signal analysis techniques. Importantly, in patients with acute brain injury, nICP can complement invasive monitoring by guiding patient selection for urgent monitoring, facilitating brain assessment in moderate traumatic brain injury, and assisting management in patients with coagulopathy. In the general intensive care population, nICP may provide valuable information after cardiac arrest, liver failure, and sepsis. In the emergency department, early detection of intracranial hypertension helps prevent missing the "golden hour" of brain care. Finally, nICP is particularly relevant in low-resource settings, where intensive care facilities are limited.
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.