Title |
The International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: Evidentiary Tables
|
---|---|
Published in |
Neurocritical Care, January 2015
|
DOI | 10.1007/s12028-014-0081-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Peter Le Roux, David K. Menon, Giuseppe Citerio, Paul Vespa, Mary Kay Bader, Gretchen Brophy, Michael N. Diringer, Nino Stocchetti, Walter Videtta, Rocco Armonda, Neeraj Badjatia, Julian Bösel, Randall Chesnut, Sherry Chou, Jan Claassen, Marek Czosnyka, Michael De Georgia, Anthony Figaji, Jennifer Fugate, Raimund Helbok, David Horowitz, Peter Hutchinson, Monisha Kumar, Molly McNett, Chad Miller, Andrew Naidech, Mauro Oddo, DaiWai Olson, Kristine O’Phelan, J. Javier Provencio, Corinna Puppo, Richard Riker, Claudia Roberson, Michael Schmidt, Fabio Taccone |
Abstract |
A variety of technologies have been developed to assist decision-making during the management of patients with acute brain injury who require intensive care. A large body of research has been generated describing these various technologies. The Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium (LABIC) organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to perform a systematic review of the published literature to help develop evidence-based practice recommendations on bedside physiologic monitoring. This supplement contains a Consensus Summary Statement with recommendations and individual topic reviews on physiologic processes important in the care of acute brain injury. In this article we provide the evidentiary tables for select topics including systemic hemodynamics, intracranial pressure, brain and systemic oxygenation, EEG, brain metabolism, biomarkers, processes of care and monitoring in emerging economies to provide the clinician ready access to evidence that supports recommendations about neuromonitoring. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 83 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 7% |
Other | 20 | 24% |
Unknown | 24 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 47% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
Psychology | 3 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 9% |
Unknown | 24 | 28% |