ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Implantation Standards for Intracranial Multimodal Monitoring (Neurocore-iMMM): An International Delphi Consensus.
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.
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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveIntracranial multimodal monitoring (iMMM) use is expanding, yet inconsistent documentation of the implantation procedure prevents data comparability and accurate safety profiling. We aimed to establish implantation standards defining which variables require documentation and at what specificity.
methodsWe conducted a three-round modified Delphi (May-August 2025) with an international panel of 82 experts with hands-on implantation experience. We investigated items common to the foundational Neurocore-iMMM consensus to test agreement between panels. Thresholds: ≥ 75% strong agreement, 66-74% moderate, and < 50% no consensus.
resultsRetention was 72% through all rounds. Of 120 items (47% participant-proposed), 57 achieved consensus. Agreed-upon standards include probe placement documentation specifying tissue type (perilesional or normal-appearing), approach (image-guided or standardized), and post-placement imaging verification (99%); complication reporting specifying misplacement (98%), postoperative hemorrhage with location (99%), and CNS infection with colonization distinguished from infection by CSF cell count and mandatory culture of withdrawn material (95%); adverse event subcategorization of accuracy drift into probe displacement, calibration loss, and signal instability (91%); and documentation of leveling reference for fluid-filled lines (78%), fixation device configuration (77%), and recalibration protocol (76%). On 25 of 29 items shared with the foundational consensus, the two independent panels reached concordant agreement.
conclusionsAligned with NIH Common Data Elements, these implantation standards specify documentation from anatomical targeting designation to adverse event subcategorization for cross-center comparison, providing the item-level foundation from which reporting criteria can be operationalized and an implementation-ready framework for multicenter neurocritical care databases and monitoring-guided therapy trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479331What 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.