| Title |
ICP management in patients suffering from traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Neurochirurgica, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00701-017-3363-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Abraham, Robert C. Rennert, Brandon C. Gabel, Jayson A. Sack, Navaz Karanjia, Peter Warnke, Clark C. Chen |
| Abstract |
Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and management form the cornerstone of treatment paradigms for sTBI in developed countries. We examine the available randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on the impact of ICP management on clinical outcomes after sTBI. A systematic review of the literature on ICP management following sTBI was performed to identify pertinent RCT articles. We identified six RCT articles that examined whether ICP monitoring, decompressive craniectomy, or barbiturate coma improved clinical outcomes after sTBI. These studies support (1) the utility of ICP monitoring in the management of sTBI patients and (2) craniectomy and barbiturate coma as effective methods for the management of intracranial hypertension secondary to sTBI. However, despite adequate ICP control in sTBI patients, a significant proportion of surviving patients remain severely disabled. If one sets the bar at the level of functional independence, then the RCT data raises questions pertaining to the utility of decompressive craniectomy and barbiturate coma in the setting of sTBI. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 22% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,488,436
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neurochirurgica
#467
of 1,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,583
of 328,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neurochirurgica
#9
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,934 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.